A.M. CASTLE: Moody's Lowers CFR to Ca, Outlook Stable-----------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service has downgraded A.M. Castle & Co.'scorporate family rating to Ca from Caa2, its probability of defaultrating to Ca-PD/LD from Caa2-PD and its existing senior securednotes to C from Caa2. The ratings downgrades reflect the company'svery weak operating results and credit metrics and the completionof the exchange of its senior secured notes. The ratings outlookis stable.

The LD designation reflects Moody's view that the recent noteexchange constitutes a distressed exchange under Moody's definitionof default. Moody's definition of default is intended to captureevents whereby issuers fail to meet debt service obligationsoutlined in their original debt agreements. Moody's will removethe LD designation from the probability of default rating in threebusiness days. At that time, Moody's will withdraw A.M. Castle'sratings since the existing senior secured notes are its only rateddebt and almost all of the notes have been exchanged for new seniornotes.

On Jan. 15, 2016, Castle announced an offer to exchange its $210million of 12.75% senior secured notes due Dec. 15, 2016, for anequal amount of 12.75% senior secured notes due Dec. 15, 2018. OnFeb. 9, 2016, the company completed the exchange of $206.3 millionof the notes. The existing $3.7 million of notes that have notbeen tendered for exchange have been stripped of substantially allrestrictive covenants and all the collateral securing the notes. The existing notes have been downgraded to C from Caa2 to reflectMoody's expectation that the note holders are likely to receivelittle recovery in the event of a default.

The maturity date on the new notes will be Dec. 15, 2018, if thecompany's completes its proposed convertible note exchange, orSept. 14, 2017 if it fails to complete the exchange. The companyhas offered to exchange $57.5 million of existing 7.0% convertiblenotes due December 2017 with a conversion price of $10.28 per sharefor $40.25 million of 5.25% senior secured convertible notes dueDecember 2019 with a conversion price of $2.25 per share.

The convertible note exchange offer will reduce the company's debtby $17.5 million if successfully completed, but is not a sizeableenough debt reduction to impact the company's rating. The companyhopes to achieve further debt reductions through the sale ofunderperforming and non-core assets, but is not likely to achievesubstantially improved operating results and credit metrics in thenear term. Moody's believes that Castle produced modestly negativeadjusted EBITDA in 2015 and does not anticipate a materialimprovement in 2016 considering the lackluster demand in most ofCastle's end markets.

Castle's Ca corporate family rating reflects its very highleverage, negative interest coverage, recent operating losses, weakcompetitive position and relatively small size versus other ratedsteel distributors. Castle's rating is supported by its adequateliquidity level and its countercyclical cash flows, which providesome flexibility to pursue operating efficiency and salesimprovement initiatives while contending with volatile steel andmetals prices and uneven end market demand.

Castle's SGL-3 speculative grade liquidity rating reflects Moody'sview that the company will maintain an adequate, although somewhatweak liquidity profile over the next twelve months. Castle had$12.0 million of cash and $28.2 million of unrestricted borrowingcapacity under its revolving credit facility as of Sept. 30, 2015.Moody's believes the company had a similar level of liquidity as ofDecember 2015.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was Distribution &Supply Chain Services Industry published in December 2015.

The Debtor did not include a list of its largest unsecured creditors when it filed the petition.

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Needs Until April 11 to File Plan--------------------------------------------------------Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., et al., ask the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to extend the periodby which they have the exclusive right to: (a) file a chapter 11plan through and including April 11, 2016; and (b) solicitacceptances of a chapter 11 plan through and including June 10,2016.

In support of the extension request, the Debtors state: "TheChapter 11 Cases have been pending for approximately four months. Given that the Debtors have made substantial progress in theseChapter 11 Cases, and that the filing of a confirmable plan is onthe horizon, the Debtors anticipate that the requested extensionwill provide them with sufficient time to propose and confirm aplan."

"As of December 31, 2015, neither Steelhead nor Steelhead Navigatorwas the beneficial owner of any shares of the issuer's votingcommon stock," they said.

Previously, shares of Alpha Natural Resources' voting common stockwere held by and for the benefit of Steelhead Navigator and anotherclient account. Steelhead, as the investment manager of SteelheadNavigator and the other client account, and as the sole member ofSteelhead Navigator's general partner, and each of J. MichaelJohnston and Brian K. Klein, as the member-managers of Steelhead,may have been deemed to beneficially own such shares of AlphaNatural Resources' voting common stock previously held by SteelheadNavigator and such other client accounts for the purposes of Rule13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, insofar as theymay have been deemed to have the power to direct the voting ordisposition of those shares.

S&P also lowered the issue-level rating on the company's $450million senior unsecured notes due October 2018 to 'CC' from'CCC+'. The recovery rating on this debt remains '3', indicatingS&P's expectation of meaningful (lower end of the 50%-70% range)recovery in the event of a default.

"The downgrade follows Alta Mesa's announcement that it haslaunched an exchange offer to existing holders of its $450 millionsenior unsecured notes for a new issue of third-lien term loans due2021," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Daniel Krauss.

The company is offering to exchange new third-lien term loans forany and all of its outstanding unsecured notes at 60% of par(assuming early participation premium). The closing date isexpected to occur by mid-March 2016.

S&P views the transaction as a distressed exchange becauseinvestors will receive less than what was promised on the originalsecurities. Additionally, in S&P's view, the offer is distressed,rather than purely opportunistic, given the current challengingoperating environment, the current market price of the notes, andmeaningful upcoming debt maturities. The company's revolvingcredit facility matures in October 2017.

The outlook is negative. Once the transaction has closed, S&Pexpects to lower the corporate credit rating to 'SD' (selectivedefault) and the issue-level rating on the $450 million notes to'D'. S&P would then review the ratings based on the new capitalstructure and consider an upgrade when there is more certainty thatthe company is no longer pursuing distressed exchanges. S&P alsoexpects to rate the new third-lien term loans when there is moredetailed information about the resulting capital structure.

S&P could raise the ratings if the transaction does not close.

AMERICAN APPAREL: Cancels Registration of Securities----------------------------------------------------The United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware onJanuary 27, 2016, entered an order confirming American Apparel,Inc.'s First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, under which, onFebruary 5, 2016, the Effective Date of the Plan, all shares ofcommon stock and other equity interests in the Company werecancelled and terminated, and the Company was converted into aDelaware limited liability company with membership interests issuedin accordance with the Plan.

American Apparel, LLC -- formerly known as American Apparel, Inc.-- on Feb. 5 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission aForm 15 "CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF REGISTRATIONUNDER SECTION 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 ORSUSPENSION OF DUTY TO FILE REPORTS UNDER SECTIONS 13 AND 15(d) OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934."

The LLC also filed several POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORMS-3 REGISTRATION STATEMENT.

The Debtors reported total assets of $199,360,934 and totalliabilities of $397,576,744.

The Debtors and their non-debtor affiliates operate a verticallyintegrated manufacturing, distribution, and retail businessfocusedon branded fashion-basic apparel, employing approximately 8,500employees across six manufacturing facilities and approximately230retail stores in the United States and 17 other countriesworldwide.

On Jan. 10, the Debtors received a letter from former CEO DovCharney disclosing a proposed $300 million alternative transactionthat will be funded by Hagan Capital Group and Silver CreekCapitalPartners but American Apparel rejected the proposal.

On Jan. 25, 2016, the Court held a telephonic hearing, grantingconfirmation of the Debtors' First Amended Plan, provided certainrevisions were made to the First Amended Plan and the proposedconfirmation order. On Jan. 27, the Court entered an orderconfirming the Plan.

AMERICAN AXLE: Posts $236 Million Net Income for 2015-----------------------------------------------------American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission its annual report on Form 10-Kdisclosing net income of $235.6 million on $3.90 billion of netsales for the year ended Dec. 31, 2015, compared to net income of$143 million on $3.69 billion of net sales for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014.

For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2015, the Company reported netincome of $62.9 million on $958.4 million of net sales compared tonet income of $13.2 million on $939.5 million of net sales for thesame period in 2014.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Company had $3.20 billion in total assets,$2.90 billion in total liabilities and $301.5 million in totalstockholders' equity.

"AAM had an outstanding year in 2015. On the strength of NorthAmerican light vehicle production volumes and our solid operationalperformance, AAM achieved record sales and record gross profit forthe year. We also made measurable progress in diversifying ourbusiness and improving our capital structure," said AAM's Chairman& Chief Executive Officer, David C. Dauch. "As we look ahead to2016 and beyond, we remain focused on advancing our technologyleadership in order to capitalize on major industry trends anddrive profitable growth and business diversification."

As reported by the TCR on Sept. 1, 2014, Fitch Ratings hadupgraded the Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) of American Axle &Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. (AXL) and its American Axle &Manufacturing, Inc. (AAM) subsidiary to 'BB-' from 'B+'. Theupgrade of the IDRs for AXL and AAM is supported by thefundamental improvement in the drivetrain and driveline supplier'scredit profile over the past several years.

ANDALAY SOLAR: Southridge May Resell 250 Million Common Shares--------------------------------------------------------------Andalay Solar Inc. filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission a Form S-1 registration statement relating to the offerand resale of up to 250,000,000 shares of the Company's commonstock, par value $0.001 per share, by Southridge Partners II LP.

All of those shares represent shares that Southridge has agreed topurchase if put to it by the Company pursuant to, and subject tothe volume limitations and other limitation of, the terms of theEquity Purchase Agreement the Company entered into with them onDec. 10, 2014. On Dec. 11, 2014, the Company filed a RegistrationStatement on Form S-1 to register 85,000,000 shares of common stockrelated to its December Equity Purchase Agreement with Southridgeand on Jan. 16, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commissiondeclared the Registration Statement effective. On July 12, 2015, the COmpany filed a Registration Statement on FormS-1 to register 150,000,000 shares of common stock related to itsDecember Equity Purchase Agreement with Southridge and on Aug. 12,2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission declared theRegistration Statement effective. To date, the Company has drawndown approximately $1,410,000 from the sale of 219,945,466 sharesof common stock from the December Equity Agreement. Subject to theterms and conditions of the December Equity Purchase Agreement theCompany has the right to "put," or sell, up to $5,000,000 worth ofshares of our common stock to Southridge, and approximately$3,590,000 remains available for sale.

The Company's common stock became eligible for trading on the OTCQBon Sept. 6, 2012. On May 15, 2015, the Company began trading onthe OTCPink and then on July 20, 2015, its stock became eligiblefor trading on the OTCQB. The Company's common stock is quoted onthe OTCQB under the symbol "WEST". The closing price of theCompany's stock on Feb. 8, 2016, was $0.0008.

Founded in 2001, Andalay Solar, Inc., formerly Westinghouse Solar,Inc., is a provider of innovative solar power systems. In 2007,the Company pioneered the concept of integrating the racking,wiring and grounding directly into the solar panel. Thisrevolutionary solar panel, branded "Andalay", quickly won industryacclaim. In 2009, the Company again broke new ground with thefirst integrated AC solar panel, reducing the number of componentsfor a rooftop solar installation by approximately 80 percent andlowering labor costs by approximately 50 percent. This AC panel,which won the 2009 Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Award, hasbecome the industry's most widely installed AC solar panel. A newgeneration of products named "Instant Connect" was introduced in2012 and is expected to achieve even greater market acceptance.

Andalay Solar reported a net loss attributable to commonstockholders of $1.87 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014,compared with a net loss attributable to common stockholders of$3.85 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $826,350 in total assets,$3.31 million in total liabilities and a total stockholders'deficit of $2.49 million.

Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc., in San Jose, California, issued a "goingconcern" qualification on the consolidated financial statements forthe year ended Dec. 31, 2014, citing that the Company's significantoperating losses and negative cash flow from operations raisesubstantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.

ARCH COAL: $5-Mil. Payment to Critical Vendors Approved-------------------------------------------------------Arch Coal, Inc., and its affiliated debtors sought and obtainedfrom Judge Charles E. Rendlen, III of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, authorizationto make payments of up to $5 million for claims of criticalvendors.

The Debtors purchase goods and services from certain vendors andindependent contractors that are unaffiliated with the Debtors andare, by and large, sole source or limited source suppliers orprovide a material economic or operational advantage when comparedto other available vendors; without them, the Debtors could notoperate ("Critical Vendors").

The Debtors told the Court that in order to preserve and maximizethe value of their estates, they must preserve key businessrelationships, an objective that the Debtors are especially mindfulof as they transition into chapter 11.

Except under extraordinary circumstances, payments of CriticalVendor Claims would be contingent on an agreement that the CriticalVendors continue to sell their goods or services to the Debtors ona going-forward basis on terms most favorable to the Debtors in theone-year period preceding the Petition Date.

The Debtors estimated that the maximum amount needed to pay theprepetition claims of Critical Vendors is approximately $5 million("Critical Vendor Claims Cap").

Founded in 1969, Arch Coal, Inc., is a producer and marketer ofcoal in the United States, with operations and coal reserves ineach of the major coal-producing regions of the Country. As ofJanuary 2016, it was the second-largest holder of coal reserves inthe United States, owning or controlling over five billion tons ofproven and probable reserves. As of the Petition Date, Archemployed approximately 4,600 full- and part-time employees.

Arch Coal, Inc. and 71 of its affiliates filed Chapter 11bankruptcy petitions (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Case Nos. 16-40120 to16-40191) on Jan. 11, 2016. The petition was signed by Robert G.Jones as senior vice president-law, general counsel and secretary.

ARCH COAL: Applies for Protections of Bankruptcy Code-----------------------------------------------------A federal judge approved an application by Arch Coal Inc. forprotections granted to a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

The order, issued by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Charles Rendlen III,confirmed that the coal producer is entitled to the protectionsdescribed in sections 362, 365 and 525 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The ruling would prevent or halt actions by anyone against ArchCoal, which include pursuing claims against the company,terminating their contracts, and denying or refusing to renewlicenses as a result of its bankruptcy filing.

Judge Rendlen also approved a process proposed by the company toadjudicate any violations of the provisions.

About Arch Coal

Founded in 1969, Arch Coal, Inc. is a producer and marketer of coalin the United States, with operations and coal reserves in each ofthe major coal-producing regions of the Country. As of January2016, it was the second-largest holder of coal reserves in theUnited States, owning or controlling over five billion tons ofproven and probable reserves. As of the Petition Date, Archemployed approximately 4,600 full- and part-time employees.

Arch Coal, Inc. and 71 of its affiliates filed Chapter 11bankruptcy petitions (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Case Nos. 16-40120 to16-40191) on Jan. 11, 2016. The petition was signed by Robert G.Jones as senior vice president-law, general counsel and secretary.

The Debtors disclosed total assets of $5.84 billion and total debtsof $6.45 billion. Judge Charles E. Rendlen III has been assignedthe case.

Founded in 1969, Arch Coal, Inc., is a producer and marketer ofcoal in the United States, with operations and coal reserves ineach of the major coal-producing regions of the Country. As ofJanuary 2016, it was the second-largest holder of coal reserves inthe United States, owning or controlling over five billion tons ofproven and probable reserves. As of the Petition Date, Archemployed approximately 4,600 full- and part-time employees.

Arch Coal, Inc. and 71 of its affiliates filed Chapter 11bankruptcy petitions (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Case Nos. 16-40120 to16-40191) on Jan. 11, 2016. The petition was signed by Robert G.Jones as senior vice president-law, general counsel and secretary.

ASPEN GROUP: Sophrosyne Capital Reports 1.3% Stake as of Feb. 12----------------------------------------------------------------In an amended Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Sophrosyne Capital, LLC disclosed that as of Feb. 12,2016, it beneficially owns 1,690,490 shares of common stock ofAspen Group, Inc., representing 1.32 percent of the sharesoutstanding. A copy of the regulatory filing is available for freeat http://is.gd/nHJYQ2

About Aspen Group

Denver, Colo.-based Aspen Group, Inc., was founded in Colorado in1987 as the International School of Information Management. OnSept. 30, 2004, it was acquired by Higher Education ManagementGroup, Inc., and changed its name to Aspen University Inc. OnMay 13, 2011, the Company formed in Colorado a subsidiary, AspenUniversity Marketing, LLC, which is currently inactive. OnMarch 13, 2012, the Company was recapitalized in a reverse merger.

Aspen's mission is to become an institution of choice for adultlearners by offering cost-effective, comprehensive, and relevantonline education. Approximately 88 percent of the Company'sdegree-seeking students (as of June 30, 2012) were enrolled ingraduate degree programs (Master or Doctorate degree program).Since 1993, the Company has been nationally accredited by theDistance Education and Training Council, a national accreditingagency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

Aspen Group reported a net loss of $4.2 million on $5.2 million ofrevenues for the year ended April 30, 2015, compared to a net lossof $5.3 million on $3.9 million of revenues for the year endedApril 30, 2014.

As of Oct. 31, 2015, the Company had $5.25 million in total assets,$3.93 million in total liabilities and $1.31 million in totalstockholders' equity.

AVAYA INC: Moody's Lowers CFR to Caa1, Outlook Negative-------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service downgraded Avaya, Inc.'s corporate familyrating to Caa1 from B3. Moody's also downgraded the company'sprobability of default rating to Caa1-PD from B3-PD, its first liendebt facilities to B2 from B1 and its second lien notes to Caa2from Caa1. The downgrade was driven by continued declines inperformance as well as concerns about the sustainability of thecurrent capital structure including its ability to refinance $600million of debt maturing in 2017. The ratings outlook isnegative.

Ratings Rationale

The Caa1 corporate family rating reflects Avaya's very highleverage (greater than 8x as of Dec. 31, 2015) and concerns aboutthe sustainability of the capital structure. The rating alsoreflects the company's very high debt service and otherrequirements at a time when the enterprise telephony market isevolving. Debt service, pension service and capital requirementsof the business leave little cushion to support unforeseenoperating challenges or to make material debt repayment or criticalacquisitions. The rating acknowledges the company's industryleading position within the enterprise telephony market and relatedunified communications markets. At the same time the industry isevolving to include integrated communications offerings, withproducts offered as either on premise or hosted, managed servicesolutions. Avaya will need to constantly reinvest in new productsand platforms to maintain its position against Cisco, its muchlarger and better capitalized primary competitor as well as smallercloud based competitors. Although the company continues to makestrides in reducing the cost structure of the business, revenuesare expected to continue to decline and it will be challenging tomaterially improve EBITDA levels in the near term.

The current capital structure is particularly problematic given thechanges underway in the unified communications market. In additionto changes in the architectures of corporate communicationssystems, the increasing preference for subscription based pricingmodels hurts near term revenues, profitability and cash flow. Though the subscription model or managed service contracts can bebeneficial in the long run, the near term hit to performance isparticularly challenging when debt levels are high and liquidity islimited. Moody's continues to expect Avaya will be a key long termplayer in the industry and given sufficient time, with theappropriate capital structure, EBITDA levels will stabilize andpotentially improve.

While the company could likely limp along if all maturities werepushed out to 2020, the current capital structure is impracticaland at worst, prevents some customers from choosing Avaya.

Liquidity is adequate over the next twelve months but unlikelysufficient to address $600 million in maturities due in October2017. Liquidity is supported by a $335 million domestic and $150million foreign ABL lines ($196 million available as of December31, 2015) as well as cash of $344 million. The company is expectedto have modest but very limited free cash flow over the nexteighteen months.

The negative outlook reflects Moody's expectation for decliningrevenues and concern that the company may face challenges inrefinancing 2017 and 2018 debt maturities.

The ratings could be downgraded if leverage were to exceed 9x orfree cash flow were negative on a sustained basis. The ratingscould be upgraded if the company can stabilize revenues and EBITDAand address its capital structure, including pushing out maturitiesand improving leverage levels to under 7x.

Jonathan D. Rich, PhD, chairman & chief executive officer, said "[W]e had a very good start to our fiscal year. There was asignificant amount of activity during the quarter, as we closed onthe acquisition of AVINTIV on October 1 and embarked on theexecution of integrating the business and achieving our synergygoals."

Berry Plastics Corporation manufactures and markets plasticpackaging products, plastic film products, specialty adhesives andcoated products. At Jan. 2, 2010, the Company had more than 80production and manufacturing facilities, primarily located in theUnited States. Berry is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BerryPlastics Group, Inc. Berry Group is primarily owned by affiliatesof Apollo Management, L.P., and Graham Partners. Berry, throughits wholly owned subsidiaries operates five reporting segments:Rigid Open Top, Rigid Closed Top, Flexible Films, Tapes/Coatingsand Specialty Films. The Company's customers are locatedprincipally throughout the United States, without significantconcentration in any one region or with any one customer.

On Dec. 3, 2009, Berry Plastics obtained control of 100 percent ofthe capital stock of Pliant upon Pliant's emergence fromreorganization pursuant to a proceeding under Chapter 11 for apurchase price of $602.7 million. Pliant is a manufacturer offilms and flexible packaging for food, personal care, medical,agricultural and industrial applications.

As of Sept. 26, 2015, the Company had $5.02 billion intotal assets, $5.08 billion in total liabilities and a $65 milliontotal stockholders' deficit.

* * *

As reported by the TCR on Jan. 30, 2015, Moody's Investors Serviceupgraded the corporate family rating of Berry Plastics to 'B1' from'B2'. The upgrade of the corporate family rating reflects thepro-forma benefits from the recent restructuring and acquisitions.

BON-TON STORES: DW Partners Reports 2.9% Stake as of Dec. 31------------------------------------------------------------In an amended Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, DW Partners, LP and DW Investment Partners, LLCdisclosed that as of Dec. 31, 2015, they beneficially own 525,000shares of common stock of The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc., representing2.9 percent of the shares outstanding. A copy of the regulatoryfiling is available for free at http://is.gd/PbJ1Af

About Bon-Ton Stores

The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc., with corporate headquarters in York,Pennsylvania and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, operates 270 stores, whichincludes nine furniture galleries and four clearance centers, in26 states in the Northeast, Midwest and upper Great Plains underthe Bon-Ton, Bergner's, Boston Store, Carson's, Elder-Beerman,Herberger's and Younkers nameplates. The stores offer a broadassortment of national and private brand fashion apparel andaccessories for women, men and children, as well as cosmetics andhome furnishings. For further information, please visit theinvestor relations section of the Company's Web site athttp://investors.bonton.com.

Bon-Ton Stores reported a net loss of $6.97 million on $2.75billion of net sales for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2015,compared to a net loss of $3.55 million on $2.77 billion of netsales for the fiscal year ended Feb. 1, 2014. The Company reporteda net loss of $21.6 million for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2,2013.

As of Oct. 31, 2015, the Company had $1.86 billion in total assets,$1.88 billion in total liabilities and a total shareholders'deficit of $17.79 million.

* * *

As reported in the TCR on Dec. 4, 2015, Moody's Investors Servicedowngraded Bon-Ton Stores's Corporate Family Rating to Caa1 fromB3. The company's Speculative Grade Liquidity rating was affirmedat SGL-2. The rating outlook is stable. The downgrade considersthe continuing and persistent negative pressure on Bon-Ton'srevenue and EBITDA margins which has been accelerating during thecourse of fiscal 2015.

CANADIAN OIL: Moody's Lowers Sr. Unsecured Rating to Ba3--------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service downgraded Canadian Oil Sands Limited's(COS) senior unsecured rating to Ba3 from Baa3 and the seniorunsecured rating on its MTN program to (P)Ba3 from (P)Baa3. Moody'sassigned COS a Ba3 Corporate Family Rating (CFR), a Ba3-PDProbability of Default Rating and a Speculative Grade LiquidityRating of SGL-3. The rating outlook is stable. This actionresolves the review for downgrade that was initiated on Dec. 16,2015.

"The downgrade of Canadian Oil Sands Limited reflects its very highcost base and Moody's expectation of very high leverage and weakinterest coverage in 2016 and 2017 in the currently very weak oilprice environment," said Terry Marshall, Moody's Senior VicePresident. "COS's rating is supported by its long-lived,low-decline reserves and its ownership by Suncor Energy Inc."

COS's Ba3 CFR reflects its stand-alone credit profile of B2 andimplicit support from its parent, Suncor Energy Inc. for whichMoody's attributes two notches of rating uplift. COS's B2stand-alone credit profile is driven by its very high coststructure with all-in cash operating costs of C$55/bbl(US$38.50/bbl) with associated negative free cash flow, butsupported by adequate liquidity and good asset value coverage. Thecash operating costs include operating and interest expense andmaintenance capex. Leverage and interest coverage will be very weakin 2016 and 2017 (debt to EBITDA of about 10x and EBITDA tointerest of 2x in 2017) and COS will need to rely on its committedliquidity and voluntary support from Suncor to fund negative freecash flow of about $400 million through this period. COS hasperformed poorly in recent years, suffering numerous operatingchallenges that have hampered production and kept unit costs high. COS benefits from very long-lived mining oil sands reserves with nogeologic or exploration risk, lower associated capex (aboutC$7/barrel) given that all major development costs are largelyalready spent and 100% synthetic crude oil production (SCO).

The SGL-3 Speculative Grade Liquidity Rating reflects COS'sadequate liquidity through 2016. At Sept. 30, 2015, COS had C$1.2billion available on its C$1.5 billion revolving credit facilitydue June 2019, which is sufficient to fund negative free cash flowin 2016 of about C$300 million (and an estimated $100 million in2017). However Moody's expects that this facility may be revisedwhen Suncor completes the acquisition of 100% of COS, in which caseMoody's assumes that COS will continue to have adequate liquidity. Moody's expects the COS to be in compliance with its singlefinancial covenant under the credit facility and the 2021 seniornotes through this period. COSL has no debt maturities until2019.

The stand-alone credit profile could be upgraded from B2 ifdebt/EBITDA and EBITDA/interest appear likely to improve towards 5xand 2.5x, respectively and adequate liquidity is maintained. Theassigned Ba3 CFR, incorporating our opinion of likely support fromSuncor, could be upgraded if the stand-alone credit profileimproves and we continue to believe Suncor will support COS.

The stand-alone credit profile could be downgraded from B2 ifEBITDA to interest appears unlikely to improve towards 1.5x or ifliquidity is deemed weak. The assigned Ba3 CFR, incorporating ouropinion of likely support from Suncor, could be downgraded shouldwe adversely change our view of the support likely to be providedby Suncor.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was GlobalIndependent Exploration and Production Industry published inDecember 2011.

CCNG ENERGY: Can Tap Graves Dougherty to Handle Corporate Matters-----------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Ronald B. King of the Bankruptcy Court for the WesternDistrict of Texas authorized, on a final basis, CCNG EnergyPartners, L.P., et al., to employ Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody,P.C., as special counsel nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date.

The Debtors represent that, although they have also sought approvalof employment of Taube Summers Harrison Taylor Meinzer Brown LLP asbankruptcy counsel, the retention of Graves Dougherty as specialcounsel is necessary based on the particular expertise andexperience that Graves Dougherty has with regard to the Debtors'corporate matters and litigation matters.

Graves Dougherty is expected to:

-- provide general corporate counsel to Debtors on anas-requested basis;

-- advise and assist the Debtors on various matters related togovernance issues and transactional matters, including necessaryresolutions for asset purchase agreements or DIP lendingagreements;

-- advise and assist the Debtors on general commercial issues;

-- advise the Debtors on employment law issues;

-- advise and assist the Debtors and Debtors' bankruptcy counselon other matters of corporate or commercial law on an as-requestedbasis, including but not limited to the sale of Debtor's assets orsimilar strategic transactions and the negotiations for andpreparation of necessary transactional documents, including assetpurchase agreements, due diligence inquiries, and DIP lendingfacility agreements;

-- provide litigation counsel to Debtors with regards tonon-bankruptcy litigation presently pending in the state courts ofthe State of Texas, including any presently pending litigation thatis removed to bankruptcy court and made an adversary to Debtors'bankruptcy cases; and

-- provide litigation counsel to Debtors with regards to suchnon-bankruptcy litigation as may arise during the pendency of theDebtors' bankruptcy cases, provided that nothing in this Order willrequire Debtors to employ Graves Dougherty with regards to suchlitigation.

Subject to further order of the Court, Graves Dougherty is notauthorized to perform these services for the Debtors:

-- assist the Debtors with preparation of disclosures requiredby the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure;

-- assist the Debtors with analysis of claims and objections toclaims, except as necessary in presently pending litigationmatters;

-- challenge the extent, validity, or priority of liens;

-- draft or negotiate a plan of reorganization or assist theDebtors with confirmation of a plan of reorganization; or

-- analyze or prosecute any chapter 5 cause of action.

The current preferred U.S. hourly rates charged by Graves Doughertyrange from $300 to $550 for partners and other counsel and $200 to$300 for associates. The hourly rates for paralegals and clerksand other non-lawyer professionals range from $150 to $275.

Graves Dougherty will employ attorneys and legal assistants withvarying degrees of legal experience, as each matter may require.Graves Dougherty expects that the primary lawyers at GravesDougherty who will be working on these matters will be Thomas Queenand Douglas Kilday, whose preferred hourly rates are $425 and $420,respectively.

Prepetition, the Debtors paid Graves Dougherty approximately $1,912for corporate services rendered, $7,182 for litigation servicesrendered, and $20 for costs associated with litigationservices. As of the Petition Date, Graves Dougherty held $318,084remaining in its trust account in the form of prepetition retainerspaid to Graves Dougherty by the Debtors.

As of the Petition Date, Graves Dougherty was over-secured in thatits retainer was in an amount in excess of the fees and costs owingas of the Petition Date. Accordingly, Graves Dougherty will be,and hereby is, permitted to draw-down on the retainer held by it onthe Debtors' accounts for pre-petition fees totaling $31,347 andexpenses totaling $3,117.

To the best of the Debtors' knowledge, Graves Dougherty representsno interest adverse to the Debtors' estates with respect to thematters upon which it is to be employed.

CTI BIOPHARMA: Baxalta Reports 14.8% Stake as of Dec. 31--------------------------------------------------------In a Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Baxalta Incorporated and Baxalta GmbH disclosed that asof Dec. 31, 2015, they beneficially own 15,673,981 shares of commonstock of CTI Biopharma Corp. representing 14.8 percent of theshares outstanding. A copy of the regulatory filing is availablefor free at http://is.gd/qicz69

About CTI BioPharma

CTI BioPharma Corp. (NASDAQ and MTA: CTIC) --http://www.ctibiopharma.com/-- formerly known as Cell Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused onthe acquisition, development and commercialization of noveltargeted therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancersthat offer a unique benefit to patients and healthcare providers.The Company has a commercial presence in Europe and a late-stagedevelopment pipeline, including pacritinib, CTI's lead productcandidate that is currently being studied in a Phase 3 program forthe treatment of patients with myelofibrosis. CTI BioPharma isheadquartered in Seattle, Washington, with offices in London andMilan under the name CTI Life Sciences Limited.

CTI Biopharma reported a net loss attributable to commonshareholders of $96 million in 2014, compared with a net lossattributable to common shareholders of $49.6 million in 2013.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $63.1 million in totalassets, $90.6 million in total liabilities and a $27.5 milliontotal shareholders' deficit.

CUMULUS MEDIA: Canyon Capital Reports 2.2% Stake as of Dec. 31--------------------------------------------------------------In an amended Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Canyon Capital Advisors LLC (CCA), Mitchell R. Julisand Joshua S. Friedman disclosed that as of Dec. 31, 2015, theybeneficially own 5,055,143 shares of common stock of Cumulus MediaInc. representing 2.17 percent of the shares outstanding. A copyof the regulatory filing is available at http://is.gd/ZNYTJ8

About Cumulus Media

Cumulus Media Inc. (CMLS) combines high-quality local programmingwith iconic, nationally syndicated media, sports and entertainmentbrands in order to deliver premium choices for listeners, providesubstantial reach for advertisers and create opportunities forshareholders. As the largest pure-play radio broadcaster in theUnited States, Cumulus provides exclusive content that is fullydistributed through approximately 460 owned-and-operated stationsin 90 U.S. media markets (including eight of the top 10), morethan 10,000 broadcast radio affiliates and numerous digitalchannels. Cumulus is well-positioned in the widening digitalaudio space through a significant stake in the Rdio digital musicservice, featuring 30 million songs on-demand in addition tocustom playlists and exclusive curated channels. Cumulus is alsothe leading provider of country music and lifestyle contentthrough its NASH brand, which will serve country fans throughradio programming, NASH magazine, concerts, licensed products andtelevision/video. For more information, visit www.cumulus.com

Cumulus Media put AR Broadcasting Holdings Inc. and three otherunits to Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.11-13674) in 2011 after struggling to pay off debts that topped$97 million as of June 30, 2011.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $3.12 billion in totalassets, $3.10 billion in total liabilities and $19.6 million intotal stockholders' equity.

Bankruptcy Warning

"The lenders under the Credit Agreement have taken securityinterests in substantially all of our consolidated assets, and wehave pledged the stock of certain of our subsidiaries to secure thedebt under the Credit Agreement. If the lenders accelerate therequired repayment of borrowings, we may be forced to liquidatecertain assets to repay all or part of such borrowings, and wecannot assure you that sufficient assets will remain after we havepaid all of the borrowings under such Credit Agreement. If we wereunable to repay those amounts, the lenders could proceed againstthe collateral granted to them to secure that indebtedness and wecould be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation. Our ability toliquidate assets could also be affected by the regulatoryrestrictions associated with radio stations, including FCClicensing, which may make the market for these assets less liquidand increase the chances that these assets would be liquidated at asignificant loss. Any requirement for us to liquidate assets wouldlikely have a material adverse effect on our business," the Companysaid in its annual report for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014.

* * *

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that it lowered itscorporate credit rating on Atlanta-based radio broadcaster CumulusMedia Inc. to 'B-' from 'B', as reported by the TCR on Nov. 10,2015.

As reported by the TCR on Sept. 17, 2015, Moody's Investors Servicedowngraded Cumulus Media Inc.'s Corporate Family Rating to B3 fromB2. Cumulus' B3 Corporate Family Rating reflects Moody'sexpectation that debt-to-EBITDA will remain elevated and in the midto high 8x through FYE2015 (including Moody's standard adjustments)due to continued revenue declines in core ad sales and networkrevenue as well as the absence of political ad spending in 2015, anodd numbered year.

On Jan. 19, 2016, Curo raised $95 million of incremental secondlien term loans (not rated). The proceeds of the new debt was usedin combination with cash-on-hand to acquire New Century Hospice,Inc., a regional hospice provider in the Southwest and SouthernUnited States.

Moody's raised its ratings on Curo's first lien senior securedcredit facilities to reflect the change in the debt capitalstructure, namely the addition of $95 million of second lien debt.The second lien debt is junior to the first lien credit facilitiesand, therefore, would absorb losses ahead of the senior securedterm loan.

The positive outlook reflects Moody's expectation of improvingcredit metrics and free cash flow in 2016, as a result of strongyear-over-year organic growth and EBITDA contributions from recentacquisitions. The positive outlook also reflects Moody's view thatCuro will maintain a conservative financial policy over thenear-term and that the company will de-lever to around 5.5x by theend of 2016.

The B3 Corporate Family Rating reflects risk associated with Curo'ssole focus on the hospice industry and the company's very highfinancial leverage. The rating also reflects the company's smallsize, the presence of considerable competition in a fragmentedindustry and high revenue concentration from Medicare. Supportingthe rating is Moody's expectation that the company's operatingperformance will result in declining financial leverage. The ratingalso reflects the company's position as the third largestfor-profit hospice operator in the US.

The positive outlook reflects Moody's expectation that creditmetrics will continue to improve through earnings growth fromexisting businesses and new de novo expansions. Further, Moody'sexpects that the company will remain an active acquirer butacquisitions will be funded in a manner that does not raiseleverage.

Prior to a positive rating action, Moody's would need to gaincomfort that any adverse reimbursement change will be manageable,without materially impairing operations or cash flow. In addition,Moody's could consider a rating upgrade if the company reduces andsustains debt to EBITDA below 5.5 times, while effectively managingits growth strategy.

The ratings could be downgraded if liquidity deteriorates or freecash flow turns negative. The ratings could also be downgraded ifdebt to EBITDA is sustained above 6.5 times.

Headquartered in Mooresville, NC, Curo Health Services Holdings,Inc. is a provider of hospice services in the Southeastern andSouthwestern regions of the U.S. and operates 170 agencies in 18states. The company recognized revenues of $377 million for thetwelve months ended Sept. 30, 2015. Curo is owned by privateequity firm Thomas H. Lee L.P.

DANDRIT BIOTECH: Reports $422,000 Net Loss for Second Quarter-------------------------------------------------------------DanDrit Biotech USA, Inc., filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission its quarterly report on Form 10-Q disclosing a net lossof $421,776 on $42,525 of revenues for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2015, compared to a net loss of $953,131 on $0 of revenuesfor the same period in 2014.

For the six months ended Dec. 31, 2015, the Company reported a netloss of $772,078 on $42,525 of revenues compared to a net loss of$1.48 million on $0 of revenues for the same period in 2014.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Company had $1.33 million in total assets,$893,914 in total liabilities and $441,772 in total stockholders'equity.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Company had $531,260 in cash and workingcapital of $328,129 as compared to June 30, 2015, when the Companyhad $1,474,134 in cash and cash held in escrow and working capitalof $910,522. The decrease in cash and working capital is primarilydue to the Company's efforts to secure financings through equityoffering and expenses for research and development attributable tothe Company engaging an entity to perform Phase IIb/III clinicaltrial of MelCancerVac.

DanDrit Biotech USA, Inc., a biotechnology company, developsvaccine for the treatment of colorectal cancer primarily in theUnited States, Europe, and Asia. Its lead compound includesMelCancerVac(MCV), a cellular therapy, which is in a comparativePhase IIb/III clinical trial for advanced colorectal cancer. Italso develops MelVaxin that is similar to the lysate component ofMCV for injecting into the skin to promote natural dendritic cellresponses that will attack the tumor expressing cancer/testisantigens. The company was founded in 2001 and is headquartered inCopenhagen, Denmark.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, the Company reported a net lossof $2.37 million on $0 of net sales compared to a net loss of $2.15million on $32,768 of net sales for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The claim objection and the Glosson Action are consolidated for alldiscovery, pre-trial matters, and trial.

According to the Liquidating Trustee, consolidation of the EagleClaim Objection with the Glosson Action is particularly appropriatebecause the actions do not merely involve "a common question of lawor fact," but several common questions of law and numerousoverlapping facts. After the Effective Date, the LiquidatingTrustee commenced more than 100 adversary proceedings, includingthe Glosson proceeding against, among others, Eagle. The GlossonAction alleges ten claims or causes of action against Eagle.

Eagle alleges that it is owed $7,385,621 as of the Petition Date byDesignLine Corporation for "[m]oney loaned."

DesignLine Corporation manufactured coach, electric and range-extended electric (hybrid) buses. Founded in Ashburton, NewZealand in 1985, DesignLine was acquired by American interests in2006, and DesignLine Corporations' headquarters was relocated toCharlotte, North Carolina. DesignLine Corporation is no longeraffiliated with the DesignLine operations in New Zealand, whichwas placed in liquidation in 2011.

DesignLine Corporation and DesignLine USA LLC originally soughtChapter 11 protection with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Delaware (Lead Case Nos. 13-12089 and 13-12090), onAug. 15, 2013. Katie Goodman at GGG Partners LLC signed thepetitions as chief restructuring officer. On Sept. 5, 2013, thecase was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the WesternDistrict of North Carolina (Case Nos. 13-31943 and 13-31944).

The Bankruptcy Judge has appointed Elaine T. Rudisill as thechapter 11 trustee for the Debtors.

DOW CORNING: Has $291M Reserve for Breast Implant Litigation------------------------------------------------------------Dow Corning Corporation had recorded a reserve for breast implantlitigation of $291 million as of December 31, 2015, according toCorning, Inc.'s Form 10-K report with the Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. CorningInc. and The Dow Chemical Company each own half of Dow CorningCorporation.

In May 1995, Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy protection to addresspending and claimed liabilities arising from many thousands ofbreast implant product lawsuits. On June 1, 2004, Dow Corningemerged from Chapter 11 with a Plan of Reorganization whichprovided for the settlement or other resolution of implant claims. The Plan also includes releases for Corning and Dow Chemical asshareholders in exchange for contributions to the Plan.

Under the terms of the Plan, Dow Corning has established and isfunding a Settlement Trust and a Litigation Facility to provide ameans for tort claimants to settle or litigate their claims. Inclusive of insurance, Dow Corning has paid approximately $1.8billion to the Settlement Trust.

supplies more than 7,000 silicon-based products and services tomore than 25,000 customers worldwide. Dow Corning is equallyowned by The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on May 15, 1995(Bankr. E.D. Mich. Case No. 95-20512) to resolve siliconeimplant-related tort liability. The Company owed its commercialcreditors more than $1 billion at that time. A consensual JointPlan of Reorganization, amended on Feb. 4, 1999, offering to paycommercial creditors in full with post-petition interest,establish a multi-billion-dollar settlement trust for tort claims,and leave Dow Corning's shareholders unimpaired, took effect onJune 30, 2004.

DOW CORNING: Has Up to $341M Liability to Commercial Creditors--------------------------------------------------------------Dow Corning Corp. is defending claims asserted by a number ofcommercial creditors who claim additional interest at default ratesand enforcement costs, during the period from May 1995 through June2004. As of December 31, 2015, Dow Corning has estimated theliability to commercial creditors to be within the range of $104million to $341 million, according to Corning, Inc.'s Form 10-Kreport with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2015.

As Dow Corning management believes no single amount within therange appears to be a better estimate than any other amount withinthe range, Dow Corning has recorded the minimum liability withinthe range. Should Dow Corning not prevail in this matter, CorningInc. said its equity earnings would be reduced by its 50% share ofthe amount in excess of $104 million, net of applicable taxbenefits.

There are a number of other claims in the bankruptcy proceedingsagainst Dow Corning awaiting resolution by the U.S. District Court,and it is reasonably possible that Dow Corning may recordbankruptcy-related charges in the future. The remaining tortclaims against Dow Corning are expected to be channeled by the Planinto facilities established by the Plan or otherwise defended bythe Litigation Facility.

On March 18, 2015 the District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois awarded EA judgment for a total of $719,814.04 in damages,attorney fees and costs in a case filed against Richerme, hisfather, and their company, American Machine Products & Services,Inc. ("AMPS") for trademark and copyright infringement, unfaircompetition, and deceptive trade practice arising from theRichermes' use of EA's business and proprietary information inconnection with AMPS' business.

EA filed an adversary complaint against Richerme to determinedischargeability of the debt owed to it by the latter pursuant tothe said judgment, which EA alleges is nondischargeable under 11U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) and (a)(6). Richerme soughtto dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Count I of the complaint sought a declaration that relevantdeterminations giving rise to the judgment have preclusive effectin EA's nondischargeability claims, set forth in Counts II, III andIV. Richerme argued that collateral estoppel does not applybecause the debt arose from entry of a default judgment on January29, 2014. Judge Schmetterer, however, found that the judgment thatwas entered pursuant to the district court order incorporatedfindings and conclusions beyond those that were established bydefault. Accordingly, the judge denied Richerme's motion todismiss the complaint on this basis.

Richerme's motion to dismiss Count II was also denied. JudgeSchmetterer found that the actions alleged in the complaint to havegiven rise to the judgment entered in the prior action could amountto false pretenses or misrepresentations for purposes of section523(a)(2)(A), and that these allegations suffice at the pleadingstage.

Judge Schmetterer also denied the motion to dismiss Count III ofthe complaint. The judge found that the acts alleged in thecomplaint to have given rise to the judgment could plausiblysupport a denial of discharge of the judgment under Section523(a)(4)(4).

Finally, in denying the motion to dismiss Count IV of thecomplaint, Judge Schmetterer found that EA has sufficiently allegedthe elements amounting to willful and malicious injury underSection 523(a)(6).

A full-text copy of Judge Schmetterer's February 1, 2016 memorandumopinion is available at http://is.gd/jWPIdEfrom Leagle.com.

EXELIXIS INC: FMR LLC Reports 14.9% Stake as of Dec. 31-------------------------------------------------------FMR LLC and Abigail P. Johnson disclosed in an amended Schedule 13Gfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 12, 2016,that they beneficially own 34,082,482 shares of common stock ofExelixis Inc. representing 14.999% of the shares outstanding. Fidelity Growth Company Fund also reported beneficial ownership of14,514,689 common shares. A copy of the regulatory filing isavailable for free at http://is.gd/aCz3Xr

About Exelixis Inc.

Headquartered in South San Francisco, California, Exelixis, Inc.,develops innovative therapies for cancer and other seriousdiseases. Through its drug discovery and development activities,Exelixis is building a portfolio of novel compounds that itbelieves has the potential to be high-quality, differentiatedpharmaceutical products.

Exelixis reported a net loss of $269 million on $25.1 million oftotal revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, compared with anet loss of $245 million on $31.3 million of total revenues in2013.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $363.24 million in totalassets, $437.46 million in total liabilities and a $74.22 milliontotal stockholders' deficit.

EXELIXIS INC: T. Rowe Price Reports 11% Stake as of Dec. 31-----------------------------------------------------------T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. disclosed in an amended Schedule 13Gfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission that as of Dec.31, 2015, it beneficially owns 25,038,170 shares of common stock ofExelixis Inc. representing 11 percent of the shares outstanding. Acopy of the regulatory filing is available for free athttp://is.gd/UAUHMz

About Exelixis Inc.

Headquartered in South San Francisco, California, Exelixis, Inc.,develops innovative therapies for cancer and other seriousdiseases. Through its drug discovery and development activities,Exelixis is building a portfolio of novel compounds that itbelieves has the potential to be high-quality, differentiatedpharmaceutical products.

Exelixis reported a net loss of $269 million on $25.1 million oftotal revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, compared with anet loss of $245 million on $31.3 million of total revenues in2013.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $363.24 million in totalassets, $437.46 million in total liabilities and a $74.22 milliontotal stockholders' deficit.

FORESIGHT ENERGY: Moody's Lowers CFR to Caa1, Outlook Negative--------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service downgraded all ratings of ForesightEnergy, LLC including the corporate family rating to Caa1 from B3,the probability of default rating to Caa1-PD from B3-PD, seniorunsecured rating to Caa3 from Caa2, and senior secured rating to B2from B1. The speculative grade liquidity rating is unchanged atSGL-4. The outlook is negative.

The downgrade reflects the continued headwinds in the coal sectorand the recent deterioration in seaborne and domestic coal prices,which we expect to persist, putting pressure on averagerealizations over the next two years as higher priced contractsroll off.

The downgrade also reflects the prolonged continued negotiationwith the company's creditors associated with an ongoing litigationby trustee for the bondholders of the company's 2021 Senior Notes,alleging that a change of control event had occurred as a result ofthe Murray acquisition in 2015. In December 2015 the companyreceived a notice from the administrative agent of its securedcredit agreement that it was in default under the terms of theagreement as a result of the court opinion issued in the bondholderlitigation. The company continues to negotiate with its lenders tocure the alleged default events, and the outcome is uncertain. Asof Sept. 30, 2015, the company had $600 million of 2021 SeniorNotes outstanding, and $673 million under its senior secured bankcredit facility. The company does not have sufficient liquidity torepay its debt if it were to be accelerated.

In May 2015 the trustee for the bondholders of the company's 2021Senior Notes filed suit alleging that Murray Energy Corporation'sacquisition of an interest in Foresight Energy GP LLC triggered achange of control of the unsecured 2021 Senior Notes. On Dec. 4,2015, a Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court issued hisopinion, but not a judgment, stating that change of control hadoccurred and that the trustee was entitled to a company's offer topurchase the 2021 Senior Notes at 101% of the principal amounttendered, as required by the indenture. A judgment in the case hasnot yet been rendered. The company is involved in ongoingdiscussions with a majority of the unsecured holders of their 2021Senior Notes and with certain lenders under their revolving creditfacility, in an attempt to resolve these issues. The company alsoindicated that it is likely to suspend distributions on theircommon units, commencing with the quarter ending Dec. 31, 2015.

The corporate family rating continues to reflect the company'sposition as the lowest cost underground producer in the IllinoisBasin, ample reserves, multiple transportation options, and accessto export markets. The CFR also captures the stable domesticcustomer base of large scrubbed coal plants and attractivecontracted position through the end of 2016. The ratings arefurther supported by our view that Illinois Basin (ILB) remains thebetter positioned coal region in the US. The ratings areconstrained by the company's geographical and operationalconcentration as an Illinois Basin producer with four undergroundmining complexes.

The Speculative Grade Liquidity rating of SGL-4 reflects thereceipt of default notice by the administrative agent of thecompany's secured credit agreement. At Sept. 30, 2015, prior tothe default notice the company liquidity consisted of $25 millionin cash and $166 million available under $550 million revolvermaturing in August 2018. The company generated over $200 millionin operating cash flows for the twelve months ended September 30,2015, comfortably covering roughly $130 million in capitalinvestments. The company had paid roughly $50 million per quarterin dividends over the past four quarters. Moody's expects fourthquarter 2015 cash outlay of roughly $8 million following thedividend cut announced in November 2015. Moody's believes thatrecent dividend reduction will result in positive free cash flowsover the next twelve months.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was Global MiningIndustry published in August 2014.

Foresight Energy, LLC is 100% owned by Foresight Energy L.P., whichis a Master Limited Partnership (MLP). Foresight is a thermal coalproducer operating in the Illinois Basin. Currently, the companyhas four operating mining complexes, with four longwall operations,one continuous miner operation, and over 3 billion tons of coalreserves. For the twelve months ended Sept. 30, 2015, the company generated $1,043 million in revenues.

In 2015 Foresight's parent company sold 34% of its general partnerinterest and 50% of the limited partner interest to Murray EnergyCorporation. Christopher Cline, the founder of Foresight, and hisaffiliates retained an approximately 66% general partner interestand an approximately 36% limited partner interest, with the balanceof limited partner units publicly traded.

FPMC SAN ANTONIO: Finds Buyer But Lender Declares Default---------------------------------------------------------San Antonio Realty Partners, LP, owner of a property in SanAntonio, Texas that housed a hospital, said in a filing Dec. 31,2015, that it has found a buyer, which has agreed to purchase thehospital at a purchase price that would allow the Debtor to pay allcreditors in full.

On Nov. 6, 2015, the Debtor filed a motion to commence a saleprocess for substantially all assets. On Nov. 20, Judge Craig A.Gargotta approved the bidding procedures and set a Dec. 9 deadlinefor the Debtor to select a stalking horse, Dec. 18 bid deadline forcompeting bids, and a Jan. 4, 2016 sale hearing.

The Debtor said in a filing that it received multiple bids forstalking horse status but declined to accept those offers forreasons including the conditions set forth in the LOI's. TheDebtor proceeded with a written auction which resulted in multipleoffers. The Debtor forwarded each of the offers to DIP lenderTexas Capital Bank N.A. and its counsel on Dec. 18, 2015, andindicated its preference among the offers received. The buyerselected by the Debtor ("Buyer") submitted an offer which isconsiderably in excess of the indebtedness to the Lenders and wouldpay all creditors in full.

On Dec. 30, 2015, counsel for TCB sent notice to the debtor of analleged event of default under the DIP Loan Agreement. The DefaultLetter alleges that effective Jan. 4, 2016, the Debtor will havefailed to meet the milestones requiring the Debtor to (i) select astrategic transaction on or before Dec. 20, 2015 that satisfied therequirements of the DIP Agreement, and (ii) obtain a Court orderapproving the sale on or before Jan. 4, 2016.

The Debtor has filed a motion seeking a determination that it ISNOT IN DEFAULT under the DIP Loan Agreement.

$5-Mil. DIP Loan

FPMC San Antonio Realty Partners on Nov. 12, 2015, obtained fromthe U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas finalapproval to access up to $5 million of financing from Texas CapitalBank N.A. and use the bank's cash collateral.

TCB or its designee agreed to provide the Debtor a multiple-advanceterm loan made available to the Debtor in a principal amount of upto $5,000,000 with superpriority claims and first-priority lienssenior to any prepetition or postpetition liens.

All obligations under the DIP Facility were to terminate on Jan. 4,2016. The DIP facility will have interest rate fixed at 10% perannum. The $400,000 of the DIP financing was made available uponinterim approval of the DIP facility.

As of the bankruptcy filing date, the Debtor already owes TCB, theadministrative agent for the prepetition lenders, $64.3 millionthat was outstanding under a prepetition construction loan.

An interim hearing on the Motion was held Oct. 23 and a finalhearing was held Nov. 10. An interim order was entered Oct. 27 anda final order was entered Nov. 12.

The DIP Loan Agreement identifies 34 specific events of default.Included as the last event of default is the "failure to satisfyany single Strategic Transaction Milestone", which includes:

(a) An Order entered by the Bankruptcy Court approvingDebtor-in-Possession's retention of a broker acceptable to Lenderand on terms acceptable to Lenders, both in Lenders' sole andabsolute discretion not later than 30 days after the Petition Date[November 5, 2015].

(b) An Order entered by the Bankruptcy Court approving theprocess for consummating a Strategic Transaction on termsacceptable to Lenders, in their sole and absolute discretion, notlater than 30 days after the Petition Date [November 5, 2015].

(c) The Debtor-in-Possession has commenced the process ofobtaining a Strategic Transaction on terms acceptable to Lenders,in their sole and absolute discretion, not later than 25 days afterthe Petition Date [October 31, 2015].

(d) The Debtor-in-Possession has received a letter of intentfor a Strategic Transaction acceptable to Lender, in their sole andabsolute discretion, not later than 60 days after the Petition Date[December 5, 2015].

(e) The Debtor-in-Possession has selected a StrategicTransaction that (i) proposes to repay in full in cash all creditextended under this Agreement; (ii) proposes to repay in full incash all amounts due and owing to the Prepetition Lenders pursuantto the Prepetition Loan Documents; or (iii) is otherwisesatisfactory to Lender, in its sole and absolute discretion, ineach case not later than 75 days after the Petition Date [December20, 2015].

(f) An Order entered by the Bankruptcy Court approving theDebtor-in-Possession to consummate a Strategic Transaction andexecute all of the documents and agreements related to suchStrategic Transaction not later than 90 days after the PetitionDate, unless such date is extended by written agreement of Lendersand Debtor.

(g) The Debtor-in-Possession has consummated a StrategicTransaction not later than 120 days after the Petition Date, unlesssuch date is extended by written agreement of Lenders and Debtor[January 4, 2016].

(h) The employment of the Property Manager as the manager ofthe Debtor's real estate, including both the hospital facility andthe medical office building, with Property Manager having sole andexclusive responsibility and authority for managing the Debtor'sdisbursements from its DIP accounts.

(i) The employment of Raymond W. Battaglia of the Law Officesof Ray Battaglia, PLLC approved by an order of the Bankruptcy Courtas the Debtor-in-Possession's restructuring counsel.

The DIP Loan Agreement provides remedies available to TCB,including:

"In addition to other remedies expressly set forth herein andthose legal and equitable remedies available under applicable law,upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, Debtor's exclusiveperiods established under the Bankruptcy Code are terminated, andLender and the Prepetition Lenders shall have immediate relief fromthe automatic stay and may foreclose on all or any portion of theCollateral, or otherwise exercise remedies against the Collateralpermitted by applicable law. Before exercising any remedies againstthe Collateral, Lender must give five (5) days' advance writtennotice to Debtor, the Case Professionals, and the United StatesTrustee. During such five (5)-day notice period1, Debtor isentitled to an emergency hearing with the Bankruptcy Court for thesole purpose of contesting whether an Event of Default hasoccurred. Unless during such period the Bankruptcy Courtdetermines that an Event of Default has not occurred and/or is notcontinuing, the automatic stay of Section 362(a) of the BankruptcyCode, as to Lender, shall be automatically terminated at the end ofsuch notice period and without further notice or order."

On Dec. 31, 2015, the Debtor filed a motion seeking a determinationthat it IS NOT IN DEFAULT under the DIP Loan Agreement. The Debtorsaid it has complied with the DIP Loan Agreement and the SaleProcedure Order. The Debtor conducted an auction and forwardedeach of the offers to TCB and its counsel on Dec. 18, 2015 andindicated its preference among the offers received.

The Debtor sought TCB's approval of the sale to the high bidder asrequired under the DIP Loan Agreement and the Sale ProceduresOrder. TCB neither approved nor rejected the high bid. Rather, onDec. 19, 2015, TCB responded with questions and concerns related tothe offer of the highest bidder. The Debtor has endeavored torespond to TCB's concerns beginning on Dec. 22, 2015 during aconference call with TCB and its counsel. TCB wanted to conductadditional due diligence regarding the proposed transaction withthe buyer. TCB requested an in person meeting with the buyer,which the Debtor arranged to be held on Dec. 23, 2015. On Dec. 28,2015, TCB requested a meeting with the Debtor's broker and withcounsel for the doctor group affiliated with the Debtor's Property. The Debtor arranged those meetings as well and they were held onDec. 29.

Whether the buyers' offer was satisfactory to the lenders was amystery to the Debtor until receipt of the Default Letter on Dec.30, 2015. TCB's assertion that the Debtor will anticipatorilybreach its obligation to obtain an order of the Court approving thesale to the high bidder is a bit like the child who kills hisparents and seeks mercy from the court because he is an orphan. The Debtor waited 12 days after Dec. 18, 2015 for the lenders toaccept or reject the sale to the high bidder. The Debtor said ithas complied with every request from TCB to assist it in theconduct its' due diligence concerning the buyer and the proposedtransaction. According to the Debtor, failure to timely proceedwith a motion to approve a sale to the buyer, is attributable toTCB delay in advising the Debtor of its acceptance or rejection ofthe Buyer's offer.

The Debtor on Jan. 8, 2016, obtained an order from the BankruptcyCourt finding that the event of default alleged in the DefaultLetter has not occurred. The judge also ordered that the automaticstay as to TCB and the Prepetition Lenders will remain in fullforce and effect.

FREEDOM COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Nod to Hold March 16 Auction---------------------------------------------------------Freedom Communications, Inc., on Feb. 5, 2016, received approvalfrom the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District ofCalifornia of bidding procedures in connection with the sale ofsubstantially all of the Company's assets.

Judge Mark S. Wallace agreed to this timeline:

* The Debtors are authorized to enter into an asset purchase agreement with a stalking horse bidder by Feb. 12, 2016.

* If multiple qualified bids are received, an auction will be conducted by the Debtors on March 16, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (prevailing Pacific Time), at the offices of Lobel Weiland Golden Friedman LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 950, Costa Mesa, California 92626

* The sale hearing will be held on March 21, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. (prevailing Pacific Time), before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, in Courtroom 6C, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Any objections to the sale will be filed and served so as to be received no later than 9:00 a.m. (prevailing Pacific Time) on the date of the sale hearing.

In connection with a Stalking Horse APA, the Debtors, with theconsent of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and inconsultation with the DIP Agent, are authorized, but not required,to grant to a Stalking Horse Bidder a Break-Up Fee of up to 2.5% ofthe cash consideration offered by such Stalking Horse Bidder and/oran Expense Reimbursement in an amount not to exceed $200,000. SuchStalking Horse Protections, if any, would be paid in the event thatthe Stalking Horse Bidder is not approved by the Court as thepurchaser of the Assets on which it bid.

Freedom Communications and certain of its affiliates filed Chapter11 cases in order to maximize the value of the Debtors and theirassets by selling their business operations as a going concernunder the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court. Provided that thecontemplated sale results in the payment in full of theirrespective claims, the sale is supported by the Debtors' twoprimary prepetition secured creditors, Silver Point Finance, LLCand the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. In addition, theDebtors anticipate that the contemplated sale will have the supportof the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, which will beactively involved in the sale process.

The Debtors contemplate a robust sale process seeking to maximizethe value of their Assets and, to this end, have engagedGlassRatner as their financial advisory firm, FTI as theirinvestment banker, and Mosier & Company, Inc. as an independentsales representative to assist the Debtors in implementing the saleprocess.

Freedom Communications and 24 of its affiliates sought Chapter 11bankruptcy protection in California with the intention of sellingtheir assets to a group of local investors led by Rich Mirman,Freedom's chief executive officer and publisher.

Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, Freedom owns two dailynewspapers -- The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, Calif. and TheOrange County Register in Santa Ana, Calif.

FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: S&P Lowers CCR to BB, Altered Outlook to Neg------------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said it lowered its corporatecredit rating on Phoenix-based Freeport-McMoRan Inc. to 'BB' from'BBB-'. The outlook is negative. At the same time, S&P loweredits issue-level rating on the company's senior unsecured debt to'BB' from 'BBB-' and assigned it a '3' recovery rating, indicatingS&P's expectation of meaningful (50% to 70%; lower half of therange) recovery in the event of a payment default. S&P alsolowered its rating on the preferred stock to 'B+' from 'BB'.

"We estimate Freeport closed 2015 with adjusted leverage above 6x.We anticipate this will fall to around 4.5x if our pricingassumptions hold and the company meets its 2016 targets," saidStandard & Poor's credit analyst Chiza Vitta. "The companycontinues to refine its operating plan, which includes significantcost and capital spending reductions, as well as increases incopper, gold, and oil production. The rating is heavily dependenton strengthening credit measures over the next 12 months to avoidour downside triggers, and the negative outlook is anacknowledgement that the plan ahead is aggressive and could bederailed by commodity price volatility and delays."

S&P could lower the ratings if the company is unable to meet theproduction increases, cost reductions or capital spending decreasesinherent in the current mine plan. Specifically, S&P could lowerthe ratings if it thought debt to EBITDA was likely to remain above5x beyond 2016. S&P could also lower the rating if it no longerconsidered the company's business risk profile to be satisfactory. This could be the case if adjusted EBITDA margins remain below25%.

S&P could revise the outlook to stable if adjusted debt to EBITDAwas sustained below 5x. This would most likely be the result ofsuccessfully implementing recently announced cost-cutting andmargin-enhancing initiatives, such that the company returns topositive free discretionary cash flow (operating cash flow lesscapital spending less dividends). In addition, asset sale-fundeddebt repayments could accelerate the pace at which credit measuresrecover.

-- the district court is not required to abstain from theremoved State Court Action under Section 1334(c)(2); and

-- although Standard Plumbing initially failed to comply withRule 9027, the errors were not fatal to jurisdiction, and in anyevent, were cured within a reasonable time.

As to the Green Parties' motion to extend the time for filing theiropposition memorandum to Grass Valley's motion for estimation untilafter the court rules on their pending motion to remand, JudgeNuffer held that the Green Parties are incorrect that the motionfor estimation will be rendered moot if the case is remanded tostate court. The judge explained that even if the case isremanded, federal courts will still have jurisdiction over theestimation request because it is a proceeding brought under title11.

Finally, Judge Nuffer referred back to the bankruptcy court GreenValley's motion for estimation. The judge found that referral ofthe said motion is appropriate because it is brought under title 11and the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to hear and issue adecision on the said motion.

GT ADVANCED: Has Deal Reducing Manz Admin. Claim to $375K---------------------------------------------------------GT Advanced Technologies Inc. and its affiliated debtors ask theUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire toapprove a settlement with Manz China Suzhou Ltd., and Manz AG.

Under the Stipulation, Manz agrees to reduce its administrativeexpense claims to $375,000. Manz China is permitted to exerciseits set off rights with respect to the approximately $31 million itowes to GT Hong Kong, and that no payments or distributions will bemade from the chapter 11 estates or the reorganized Debtors, asapplicable, on account of any secured claim asserted by Manz China. In addition, Manz will receive general unsecured claims in anaggregate amount of $6 million.

According to the Debtors, the reduction in administrative expenseclaims will substantially benefit the general unsecured creditorsand the chapter 11 estates. Absent the Stipulation, the Debtorswould have to reserve cash in the amount of approximately $6.25million on account of Manz's administrative expense claims, with noassurance that these claims would be resolved on better terms inthe future following costly and time-consuming litigation withManz. Furthermore, the Debtors tell the Court that Manz has agreedto support the Debtors' Plan and to vote all of its generalunsecured claims to accept the Plan, which is another importantstep forward in the Debtors' efforts to emerge from chapter 11.

Headquartered in Merrimack, New Hampshire, GT Advanced TechnologiesInc. -- http://www.gtat.com/-- produces materials and equipment for the electronics industry. On Nov. 4, 2013, GTAT announced amulti-year supply deal with Apple Inc. to produce sapphire glassmaterial for use in consumer electronics products.

Under the deal, Apple would provide GTAT with a prepayment ofapproximately $578 million paid in four installments and, startingin 2015, GTAT would reimburse Apple for the prepayment over afive-year period.

GT is a publicly held corporation whose stock was traded on NASDAQunder the ticker symbol "GTAT." GTAT was de-listed from the NASDAQstock exchange in October 2014.

As of June 28, 2014, the GTAT Group's unaudited and consolidatedfinancial statements reflected assets totaling $1.5 billion andliabilities totaling $1.3 billion. As of Sept. 29, 2014, GTAT had$85 million in cash, $84 million of which is unencumbered.

On Oct. 6, 2014, GT Advanced Technologies and eight affiliatesfiled voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D.N.H. Lead Case No. 4-11916). GTsays that it has sought bankruptcy protection due to a severeliquidity crisis brought about by its issues with Apple.

The U.S. Trustee has named seven members to the Official Committeeof Unsecured Creditors. The Committee' professionals are KelleyDrye as its bankruptcy counsel; Devine, Millimet & Branch,Professional Association as local counsel; EisnerAmper LLP asfinancial advisors; and Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. as investmentbanker.

GTAT has reached a settlement with Apple. The settlement givesApple an approved claim for $439 million secured by more than 2,000sapphire furnaces that GT Advanced owns and has four years to sell,with proceeds going to Apple. In addition, Apple getsroyalty-free, non-exclusive licenses for GTAT's technology.

To be counted as a vote, all Ballots must be received by no laterthan Feb. 26. Objections or responses to confirmation of the Planmust be received no later than Feb. 26. The Debtors may file andserve replies to the objections and a memorandum in support ofconfirmation of the Plan on or before Feb. 29.

In connection with the Plan, the Financing Support Parties havecommitted $80 million of Exit Financing that will fund, in part,the Debtors' obligations under the Plan.

HAGGEN HOLDINGS: Auction for 'Core' Stores Moved to Feb. 22-----------------------------------------------------------The auction of Haggen Holdings LLC's 33 stores in Oregon andWashington was moved to Feb. 22 from Feb. 11, according to a filingit made in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

Haggen also rescheduled the sale hearing to Feb. 29 from Feb. 17.The grocery chain did not give a reason for the delay.

A bidding process, approved in December last year by the court,allows the grocery chain to enter into a deal with a buyer thatwill serve as the stalking horse bidder at the auction.

The stalking horse bidder will receive a breakup fee andreimbursement for its expenses if another bidder wins the auction.

PNC Bank National Association, which provided financing to getHaggen through bankruptcy, can take part at the auction should itdecide to credit bid, according to the bidding rules.

Haggen considers the stores in Oregon and Washington as its "core"stores as they are "relatively successful" and are located instrategic locations, according to its lawyer, Robert Poppiti Jr.,Esq., at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP.

Non-Core Store Sales

Prior to its Chapter 11 filing, Haggen had conducted closing salesat its "non-core" stores. The grocery chain was allowed tocontinue the closing sales at its 27 stores on an interim basisafter it filed for bankruptcy protection in September last year. On Oct. 15, the court gave final approval to the closing sales.

Haggen also entered into separate sale transactions for itsremaining "non-core" stores and other assets.

The grocery chain won court approval to sell 32 stores operated byits affiliates to Smart & Final Stores LLC, which made a $68million cash offer.

Meanwhile, Haggen received a $14 million offer from Albertson's LLCto buy back 30 of the 146 stores it originally sold to the grocerychain. Judge Kevin Gross approved the sale on Nov. 24.

On Dec. 14, the bankruptcy judge approved another deal in whichAlbertson's offered $875,000 to buy two additional stores locatedin San Marcos and Santa Barbara, California.

The sale of the Haggen store, located along W. Washington Street,San Diego, California, to Good Food is being appealed by AntoneCorp.

The landlord questioned the assumption and assignment of its leasewith the grocery chain to the buyer while prohibiting theenforceability of a profit-sharing provision of the lease,according to court filings.

About Haggen Holdings

Headquartered in Bellingham, Washington, Haggen was founded in 1933as a single grocery store. From 1933 to 2014, Haggen grew into a30 store family-run grocery chain, with stores located in thenorthwestern United States. From 2011 to 2014, Haggen reduced itsstore base to 18, including a stand-alone pharmacy location.

In September 2015, T. Patrick Tinker, assistant U.S. trustee forRegion 3, appointed seven creditors to the official committee ofunsecured creditors.

HEALTHWAREHOUSE.COM: Karen Singer Reports 6.2% Stake as of Dec. 31------------------------------------------------------------------In an amended Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Karen Singer disclosed that as of Dec. 31, 2015, shebeneficially owns 2,475,024 shares of common stock of HealthWarehouse.com, Inc., representing 6.2 percent of the sharesoutstanding. A copy of the regulatory filing is available for freeat http://is.gd/olrTnb

About HealthWarehouse.com

HealthWarehouse.com, Inc., headquartered in Florence, Kentucky,is a U.S. licensed virtual retail pharmacy ("VRP") and healthcaree-commerce company that sells brand name and generic prescriptiondrugs as well as over-the-counter medical products.

Healthwarehouse.com reported a net loss attributable to commonstockholders of $2.08 million on $6.12 million of net sales fortheyear ended Dec. 31, 2014, compared with a net loss attributable tocommon stockholders of $7.3 million on $10.23 million of net salesin 2013.

Marcum LLP, in New York, issued a "going concern" qualification onthe consolidated financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31,2014, citing that the Company has incurred significant losses andneeds to raise additional funds to meet its obligations and sustainits operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about theCompany's ability to continue as a going concern.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $1.06 million in totalassets, $4.78 million in total liabilities and total stockholders'deficiency of $3.71 million.

Bankruptcy Warning

"The Company recognizes it will need to raise additional capital inorder to fund operations, meet its payment obligations and executeits business plan. There is no assurance that additional financingwill be available when needed or that management will be able toobtain financing on terms acceptable to the Company and whether theCompany will become profitable and generate positive operating cashflow. If the Company is unable to raise sufficient additionalfunds, it will have to develop and implement a plan to furtherextend payables, attempt to extend note repayments, attempt tonegotiate the preferred stock redemption and reduce overhead untilsufficient additional capital is raised to support furtheroperations. There can be no assurance that such a plan will besuccessful. If the Company is unable to obtain financing on atimely basis, the Company could be forced to sell its assets,discontinue its operation and /or seek reorganization under theU.S. bankruptcy code," the Company states in the report for theperiod ended Sept. 30, 2015.

At the same time, S&P lowered its issue-level rating on thecompany's senior unsecured notes to 'B-' from 'B'. The '4'recovery rating on the debt is unchanged, indicating S&P'sexpectation of average (30%-50%; upper half of the range) recoveryin the event of a payment default.

"The stable outlook reflects our expectation that Hecla MiningCo.'s liquidity, including approximately $175 million in cash atthe end of the third quarter, will remain adequate over the next 12months," said Standard& Poor's credit analyst Ryan Gilmore. "Wealso expect that Hecla will maintain FFO to debt below 12% andadjusted debt leverage in the 6x-7x range over the next 12months."

S&P would consider a downgrade if it no longer deemed liquidity tobe adequate, possibly as a result of continued weakness in metalsprices coupled with ongoing high levels of capital spending, ordiminished covenant headroom. A negative rating action could alsooccur if EBITDA interest coverage were sustained below 1x, whichcould occur if metals prices remained weak or declined from currentlevels and 2016 EBITDA fell below $60 million, all else beingequal.

S&P would consider an upgrade if the company maintains creditmeasures near current levels while enhancing the business to alevel S&P feels is commensurate with a weak business risk profileassessment. This could occur if current expansion and productiontargets are continually achieved or if the company enhanced itsgeographic or operating diversity. Separately, S&P could raise therating if the company achieved sustainable improvement in creditmeasures, with debt to EBITDA of less than 5x and FFO to debt morethan 12%.

Note: S&P's forecast cash flow and leverage measures incorporateStandard & Poor's expectation for lower metals prices over the next24 months as reflected in the latest metals price deck. If metalsprices were sustained at levels higher than currently forecast --for example, the price of gold were sustained at above $1,250 andexpected to remain at higher levels -- S&P could revisit itsforecast accordingly.

HEPAR BIOSCIENCE: Amends Schedule of Secured Creditors------------------------------------------------------Hepar Bioscience LLC, filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Dakota amendment to:

1. Schedules B & D;

2. Schedule D -- Creditors who have claims secured by property;and

3. Amended Schedule A/B -- Real and Personal Property.

According to the Debtor, it filed amendments to Schedules B & D,and notice of amendments on Dec. 22, 2015; however, it did notattach the Amended Schedule B as an exhibit, or the certificate ofservice.

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on March 17, 2015, theDebtor filed a summary of schedules of assets and liabilities,disclosing:

The U.S. Trustee for Region 12 appointed a five-member OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors. The Committee tapped James S.Simko of Cadwell, Sanford, Deibert & Garry, LLP as its counsel,andDuff & Phelps Securities, LLC as its valuation advis

At the same time, S&P affirmed its 'CCC+' first-lien issue ratingon the company's senior secured notes and 'CCC' rating on theremainder of the company's debt issues. The recovery rating on thefirst-lien notes remains '3', indicating S&P's expectation ofmeaningful (lower half of the 50%-70% range) recovery in the eventof a default scenario. The recovery rating on the remainder of thecompany's debt issues remains '5', indicating modest (lower half ofthe 10%-30% range) recovery in a default scenario.

"The outlook revision reflects the risk related to a successfulrefinancing of Hexion's credit facility maturing in 2018, whichcould come due as early as December 2017 depending on the amountoutstanding under the company's 8.875% senior notes due 2018," saidStandard & Poor's credit analyst Allison L Schroeder. "Volatile oilprices and currency headwinds also continue to challenge thecompany's future operating performance," she added.

S&P expects funds from operations (FFO) to debt to be the inlow-single-digit range and debt to EBITDA to remain above 10x overthe next year or so. S&P could lower the ratings during the nextyear if liquidity weakens from less than adequate, increasing thelikelihood that Hexion might not meet its payment obligations. Thiscould occur if macroeconomic or industry conditions worsenmaterially, raw material costs spike, and Hexion is unable to passcost increases on to its customers, capital spending exceeds S&P'sexpectations, there are additional sizable acquisitions, or if theshared services agreement with MPM is terminated or significantlyamended. S&P could also lower the ratings if it believes that adebt restructuring is likely. Although S&P do not view thecompany's third quarter debt repurchase as distressed, S&P couldlower the rating if it views any subsequent buybacks as distressedexchanges.

S&P could increase the rating on Hexion if improvement to operatingperformance causes operating cash flow to consistently remainpositive and liquidity strengthens to adequate. Although unlikelyin the within the next year, S&P could raise the ratings slightlyif the foregoing comes to pass, Hexion achieves and maintains anadjusted debt to EBITDA ratio of about 6x, and the financialsponsor appears unlikely to relever the company.

HORSEHEAD HOLDING: Court Recognizes Case as Foreign Proceeding--------------------------------------------------------------The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an initial order and asupplemental order recognizing (i) the Chapter 11 cases ofHorsehead Holding Corp. as a foreign proceeding, and (ii) ZochemInc. as foreign Representative of the Debtors.

Persons or entities who wish to receive a copy of the RecognitionOrders or obtain any further information should contact theinformation officer at:

Horsehead Holding Corp. is the parent company of HorseheadCorporation, a U.S. producer of specialty zinc and zinc-basedproducts and a leading recycler of electric arc furnace dust; TheInternational Metals Reclamation Company, LLC ("INMETCO"), aleading recycler of metals-bearing wastes and a leading processorof nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries in North America; and ZochemInc., a zinc oxide producer located in Brampton, Ontario. Horsehead, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., has seven facilitiesthroughout the U.S. and Canada. The Debtors currently employapproximately 730 full-time individuals.

Lease payments received by HTHL from High Tech High Media Arts(HTHMA) secure the series 2008A bonds. Lease payments received byHTHL from High Tech High Chula Vista (HTHCV) secure the series2008B bonds. HTHCV's series 2008B bonds also have a subordinatepledge of up to $600,000 annually from revenues generated bycertain other HTHL schools, as well as a mortgage lien on the ChulaVista facility. Both bond series have a cash-funded debt servicereserve.

SOLID DEMAND: Both HTHMA and HTHCV have demonstrated solid demand,supported by a network of HTHL elementary and middle schoolcampuses that feed into the two high schools.

LIMITED FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY: Despite solid academic performanceand favorable enrollment trends, both HTHMA and HTHCV operate inimproving but still constrained financial environments. HTHCVrelies on a debt service subsidy, although that subsidy continuesto decline. Both schools are heavily dependent on state per-pupilfunding, and both have very limited balance sheets.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

OPERATING PERFORMANCE: Weakened debt service coverage or operatingperformance for either High Tech High Media Arts or High Tech HighChula Vista, which is not presently expected, could negativelystress the respective rating.

ELIMINATION OF SUBSIDY PAYMENTS: An elimination of the need for asubsidy payment combined with stable-to -improving debt servicecoverage and balanced operations could lead to an upgrade at HighTech High Chula Vista.

HTHL is the non-profit parent of several affiliates, including HTH,which operates 12 charter schools. The various schools operate onthree campuses, with each campus housing a complement ofelementary, middle and high schools to provide academic services.HTHL owns the facilities leased to the respective charter schools,and provides supervision, oversight and coordination across itsaffiliated charter schools.

The organization received a large gift in fiscal 2014, allowing itto purchase a former public school site for a prospective fourthcampus housing K-12 students. At this time, management isprojecting renovations will cost $13.5 million to $15.5 million andwill be funded with a mix of loans, internal reserves and possiblysome gifts. A partial opening in fall 2018 and full build-out by2020-21 is expected.

All affiliate charter schools operate in San Diego County, CA, andmanagement expects that geographic focus to continue. All of HTHL'scharter schools are authorized by either the San Diego UnifiedSchool District (SDUSD) or under a statewide benefit charter fromthe State Board of Education (SBE).

HTHCV is one of the SBE-authorized schools and opened in fall 2007.It serves over 630 grade 9-12 students. The school operates under afive-year charter that extends through June 2017. Fitch was unableto speak with SBE prior to publication. However, given HTHCV'sstrong student demand and stable financial position, management isnot anticipating any issues with its charter renewal.

HTHMA serves about 400 grade 9-12 students at the HTH Village inSan Diego, and is one of several HTH schools located on a campus ona former Navy base in Pt. Loma. It was founded in fall 2005, andoperates under a SDUSD charter; the current five-year charterextends through 2019. SDUSD reports a positive working relationshipwith HTHMA with the school in full compliance with charterstandards.

PLEDGED SCHOOLS FINANCIALLY STABLE

The pledged schools maintained breakeven-to-positive operatingmargins over the past few years, even in years with state per-pupilaid reductions. Per-pupil aid is the dominant funding source forthe schools, as is typical in California and with charter schoolsin general. Modest state per-pupil funding increases began infiscal 2013, and continued in 2014 (about 3%-5% depending on theschool) with larger increases in 2015 (about 12%) and 2016(11%-14.5%). Management estimates a 4.5% increase for fiscal 2017.Fitch views the improved per-pupil funding environment, combinedwith solid demand and stable enrollment, as supporting positiveoperating performance.

HTHMA generated a break-even or modestly positive margins in eachof the past five fiscal years. The fiscal 2015 results werepositive ($114,000 or a margin of 2.9%). This compares favorably tofiscal 2014 results of negative 0.2%. Slimmer results in fiscal2014 were due to a one-time purchase of computer equipment. Marginsfor fiscal 2016 are projected to be positive. Coverage in fiscal2015 of $620,000 annual debt service (equivalent to maximum annualdebt service [MADS] and the annual HTHL lease obligation) remainspositive; fiscal 2015 coverage was 2.5x.

HTHCV receives a subsidy from other HTHL schools (the various PointLoma facilities) to meet its annual transaction MADS obligation of$1.2 million. With that subsidy, operations are consistently closeto break-even, and debt service coverage is positive (1.3x infiscal 2015). In fiscals 2013 and 2014, the subsidy was lowered to$450,000 from the pledged $600,000 due to stronger operations atHTHCV, and further reduced to $217,139 in fiscal 2015. For fiscal2016 management is projecting the subsidy at $195,000. RecentlyHTHCV was awarded a three-year Charter School Facilities IncentiveGrant in the amount of $187,500 per year which will allow thesubsidy to be further reduced. Management reports the Point LomaFacilities have ample capacity to continue the subsidy at themaximum $600,000 level if required, but there is no expectationthat the full amount will be needed in the future. Fitch views themoderating level of subsidization favorably and upgrade potentialfor HTHCV exists if the subsidy is eliminated, debt servicecoverage remains stable to improving, and operations are balanced.

SLIM BALANCE SHEETS

The balance sheet cushions at each of the schools remain extremelynarrow relative to the rating category. Liquidity remains asignificant credit concern, as is the case for many otherFitch-rated charter schools. For HTHCV, available funds (AF;unrestricted cash and investments) on June 30, 2015 declined to$688,000 (from $858,000), equal to a slim 11.8% of expenses (15.5%in fiscal 2014) and 3.7% of debt (4.7% in fiscal 2014). For HTHMA,AF improved to $473,000, still a narrow 12.3% of expenses and 10.7%of debt. HTH management reports that liquidity is managed on apooled basis at the HTHL and Affiliates level.

At June 30, 2015, AF for HTH Learning and Affiliates wasapproximately $15 million, up from $12.6 million the prior year. AFin fiscal 2015 was equal to 30.4% of expenses and 20% of pro formadebt ($75 million, including the $22.6 million series 2008A and Bbonds). Fitch included a $2 million bank line in the pro forma debtcalculation. While HTHL and Affiliate's balance sheet is strongerthan that of the pledged schools, not all is pledged or availablefor series 2008A or 2008B debt service.

STRONG STUDENT DEMAND

Strong student demand at the pledged schools supports operatingperformance. At HTHMA, enrollment for fall 2015 remained stable andconsistent with budget, with 400 students. At HTHCV, enrollmentincreased to 639 in fall 2015 from 626 in fall 2014 and above the618 budget. Management is trying to reduce enrollment to a moreideal 560-580, but has not been successful because prior yearfreshman classes were larger and had strong retention rates.Management expects enrollment will moderate at HTHCV within thenext year or two. Both schools are routinely over-subscribed with2-3 times the applications for every available seat. As such, theyuse lotteries to select students.

MIXED DEBT BURDEN RATIOS

HTHMA's debt burden is consistently high but has declined to a moremanageable 15.6% of operating revenues from 18% in 2011. Fitchbases this calculation on the $620,000 annual lease payment due toHTHL. Actual series 2008A bond debt service is less. TransactionMADS debt burden remains high at 15.5% in fiscal 2015, but hasmoderated from 18.4% in fiscal 2010. In fiscal 2015, MADS was 5.8xnet income available for debt service, a level more favorable thanmost Fitch-rated charter schools.

HTHCV's ratios are substantially weaker, reflecting the younger ageof the school, higher debt leverage, and reliance on a pledged debtservice subsidy from other HTH charter schools at the Point Lomacampus. TMADS represented 21% of fiscal 2015 operating revenues,slightly lower than the prior two years but one which Fitchconsiders still very high. Similarly, total debt represented a high11.6x net available income.

James River Coal Company is a producer and marketer of coal in theCentral Appalachia ("CAPP") and the Midwest coal regions of theUnited States. James River's principal business is the mining,preparation and sale of metallurgical coal, thermal coal (which isalso known as steam coal) and specialty coal.

James River and 33 of its affiliates filed Chapter 11 bankruptcypetitions (Bankr. E.D. Va. Case Nos. 14-31848 to 14-31886) inRichmond, Virginia, on April 7, 2014. The petitions were signed byPeter T. Socha as president and chief executive officer. JudgeKevin R. Huennekens oversees the Chapter 11 cases.

On the petition date, James River Coal disclosed total assets of$1.06 billion and total liabilities of $818.6 million.

The Debtors, in August 2014, won authority to sell the HampdenMining Complex (including the assets of Logan & Kanawha CoalCompany, LLC), the Hazard Mining Complex (other than the assets ofLaurel Mountain Resources LLC) and the Triad Mining Complex for $52million plus the assumption of certain environmental and otherliabilities, to a unit of Blackhawk Mining. The Buyer isrepresented by Mitchell A. Seider, Esq., and Charles E. Carpenter,Esq., at Latham & Watkins LLP.

* * *

James River Coal has filed a bankruptcy-exit Plan that contemplatesthe liquidation and dissolution of the Debtors and the resolutionof all outstanding claims against, and interests in, the Debtors. A copy of the Disclosure Statement for the Liquidating Plan filedDec. 22, 2015, is available for free at:

The Bankruptcy Court has approved the adequacy of the disclosurestatement describing the Chapter 11 plan, and set March 3, 2016, at4:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) as deadline to vote on theDebtors' plan. A hearing is scheduled for March 10, 2016, at 1:00p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) to confirm the Debtors' plan. Objections to the confirmation of the Debtors' plan must be filedno later than 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) on March 3, 2016.

JEVIC TRANSPORTATION: Truckers Tell High Court Case Has High Stakes-------------------------------------------------------------------Patrick Boyle at Bankruptcy Law360 reported that some 1,200truckers have shot back at their former company's argument that theU.S. Supreme Court shouldn't hear their challenge to a bankruptcysettlement that ignores their $12.4 million in claims, saying thedeal upends federal law guiding which creditors take priority.

The Third Circuit's dismissal of their suit last year conflictswith other circuit court rulings and is likely to affect morebankruptcy cases because it casts doubt on whether courts mustfollow the priority scheme dictated in federal bankruptcy law, thetruckers said in a Feb. 2 response to Jevic Holding Corp.'scontention that the settlement involves a rare circumstance that isunlikely to apply elsewhere.

The U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed five creditors toserve on an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Robert J.Feinstein, Esq., Bruce Grohsgal, Esq., and Maria A. Bove, Esq., atPachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington, Del., representthe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Before filing for bankruptcy, the Debtors initiated an orderlywind-down process. As a part of the wind-down process, theDebtors ceased substantially all of their business andterminated roughly 90% of their employees. The Debtors continueto manage the wind-down process in an attempt to deliver allfreight in their system and to retrieve their assets.

When the Debtors sought protection from their creditors, theyestimated assets and debts between $50 million and $100 million.At Oct. 31, 2010, the Debtor had total assets of $425,000, totalliabilities of $12.2 million, and a stockholders' deficit of$11.8 million.

At the same time, S&P revised the recovery rating on the company's$350 million term loan B to '2' from '3'. The issue-level ratingremains 'B+'. The '2' recovery rating indicates S&P's expectationof substantial (lower end of the 70% to 90% range) recovery in theevent of a payment default.

S&P's base case assumes a slower recovery in titanium dioxide(TiO2) industry conditions than previously expected. Despite theexpectation for some modest improvement in prices from weak 2015levels, S&P believes that the supply-demand imbalance in the TiO2sector will persist and continue to depress earnings.

The stable outlook on Kronos Worldwide Inc. reflects S&P'sexpectation that industry conditions will gradually improve fromdepressed 2015 levels, supporting adequate liquidity and animprovement in credit measures. S&P also expects that managementwill maintain a prudent approach to funding growth and returns toshareholders. Over the next year, S&P expects Kronos to maintainleverage measures appropriate for the rating, including debt toEBITDA between 5x and 6x on a weighted average sustainable basis.At the current rating S&P also expects the group credit profile toremain unchanged.

S&P could lower the ratings in the next 12 months if it expectspressure from weak TiO2 prices to continue longer than expected, aswell as weaker-than-expected end market demand. In this scenario,S&P would expect debt to EBITDA to remain above 7x, withoutnear-term prospects for improvement. S&P could also lower theratings if the company uses additional debt to fund growth plans orreturns to shareholders. Additionally, to lower the ratings, S&P'sdownside scenario would have to lead to a weakening of the groupcredit profile.

S&P could raise the ratings in the next 12 months if the TiO2industry conditions and Kronos' operations stabilize to the pointwhere S&P expects the company to maintain debt to EBITDA below 4xon a weighted average sustainable basis. For this to occur S&Pwould look for evidence of steadier end market demand and rawmaterial input prices. To raise the ratings, the group creditprofile would also need to strengthen as a result of morestabilized industry conditions in S&P's upside scenario.

LAZARD GROUP: Moody's Puts Ba1 CFR on Review for Upgrade--------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service has placed the ratings of Lazard GroupLLC on review for upgrade, including its Ba1 corporate familyrating and Ba1 senior unsecured debt rating.

Moody's has taken these rating actions:

Corporate family rating, Ba1 on review for upgrade

Senior unsecured debt rating, Ba1 on review for upgrade

Senior unsecured shelf rating, (P)Ba1 on review for upgrade

Subordinate shelf rating, (P)Ba2 on review for upgrade

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's said there is upward pressure on Lazard's ratings followingits reported 2015 results that demonstrated a sustained level ofdiscipline in its compensation practices. This cost discipline,and strong revenues driven by a buoyant M&A advisory environment,have improved Lazard's key credit metrics, said Moody's. Moody'ssaid that Lazard's credit strengths include a strong brand andagency-based business model, a broadly diversified business andgeographical mix, and a liquid balance sheet.

In reviewing Lazard for upgrade, Moody's said it would focus on theresiliency of its business model should the M&A advisory marketsoften and Lazard's asset management activities become affected bya significant and prolonged market downturn. Moody's said Lazard'scash flow generating capacity would be pressured in such ascenario, although this would likely be mitigated to some extent bygrowth in Lazard's corporate restructuring advisory business undersuch adverse economic conditions. Moody's said management'sability to remain within its stated through-the-cycle cost controltargets, without damaging its franchise value, would become a keyfactor in its ability to weather such a downturn and maintain areasonable level of credit strength at the bottom of the cycle.

In addition to reviewing Lazard's financial resiliency, Moody'ssaid it would assess Lazard's capital allocation policies, and howthese might develop in the future.

What Could Change the Rating -- UP

Lazard could be upgraded should Moody's conclude that its improvedcost discipline is sufficiently rigorous to sustain a reasonabledebt service capacity at the bottom of the economic cycle, andwhich would accelerate the company's improved results in asubsequent upturn. Moody's said an upgrade would also be dependentupon its assessment of how Lazard's capital allocation policiesmight evolve over time, particularly with respect to the balancebetween creditor and shareholder interests.

What Could Change the Rating -- DOWN

Moody's said downward rating pressure is unlikely to develop in theshort term, given that Lazard's ratings are on review for upgrade. A significant and prolonged deterioration in debt leverage would beviewed negatively, as would a sharp escalation in compensationcosts as a percentage of revenues, said Moody's. Moody's added thatdownward rating pressure could also develop if Lazard's significantbalance sheet cash was materially reduced without a commensuratereduction in debt.

The methodologies used in these ratings were Global SecuritiesIndustry Methodology published in May 2013 and Asset Managers:Traditional and Alternative published in December 2015.

In June 2013, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised itscorporate credit rating on Level 3 to 'B' from 'B-'. "The upgradereflects improved debt leverage, initially from the acquisition ofthe lower-leveraged Global Crossing in October 2011, andsubsequently from realization of the bulk of what the companyexpects to eventually be $300 million of annual operatingsynergies," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst RichardSiderman.

As reported by the TCR on Aug. 17, 2015, Moody's Investors Serviceupgraded Level 3 Communications, Inc.'s corporate family rating(CFR) to Ba3 from B2. Level 3's Ba3 CFR is based on the company'ssolidifying business and financial profiles as it integrates theformer tw telecom, inc., with Moody's anticipating continued marginimprovement as synergies are realized, and as higher marginInternet Protocol-based services replace legacy services.

LOUISIANA OILFIELD: Court Refuses to Lift Stay for Injured Workers------------------------------------------------------------------Judge Robert Summerhays of the United States Bankruptcy Court forthe Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, granted themotion filed by Louisiana Oilfield Contractors AssociationInsurance Fund with respect to non-employer direct claims byinjured workers.

The judge also granted in part and denied in part the motions forrelief from automatic stay filed by Kelvin Hoyt, Richard Kozma, andWestley Bourg.

Early in LOCA's chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the court entered anorder extending the stay to all actions and proceedings againstmembers of LOCA on the grounds that any such claims were propertyof the bankruptcy estate. Subsequently, the Movants sought relieffrom the stay to pursue claims against their employers who weremembers of LOCA. The Movants also sought to expand liability toLOCA member companies who did not employ them, solely by virtue oftheir membership in the fund. The Movants based their claim onLSA-R. S. 23:1196F which provides that the members of a groupself-insurance fund, like LOCA, are "liable in solido forliabilities of the fund."

LOCA then sought a ruling that these claims are property of theestate and that the Movants do not possess independent claimsagainst LOCA members who did not employ them.

Judge Summerhays found that LSA-R. S. 23:1196F does not support anindependent private cause of action or the expansion of workers'compensation liability advocated by the Movants. The judgeexplained that the text of the said provision imposes in solidoliability with respect to "liabilities of the fund," not withrespect to individual workers' compensation claims.

Accordingly, Judge Summerhays granted LOCA's motion requesting aruling that the Movants do not have independent claims against theLOCA members who did not employ them and that they are barred bythe automatic stay from pursuing any such claims. The judge alsodenied the Movants' motions for relief with respect to claimsagainst these LOCA members.

Judge Summerhays, however, granted the Movants' motion for relieffrom the stay to pursue claims against their employers becausethese claims arise out of the Louisiana Workers Compensation Law,and are not affected by LSA-R.S. Sections 1191 et seq. per section1196E.

LUIS BURGOS: Goldsmith, US Trustee Deadline to File Briefs Extended-------------------------------------------------------------------Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the United States District Court forthe District of Nevada granted the stipulation filed by Tracy HopeDavis, the United States Trustee for Region 17, and Jonathan B.Goldsmith for an extension of time to file their briefs.

Goldsmith filed a notice of appeal of a bankruptcy order (1)granting the Trustee's motion for disgorgement of fees pursuant to11 U.S.C. Section 329 that were paid to Goldsmith; and (2) denyingGoldsmith's request for allowance of fees and expenses pursuant to11 U.S.C. Section 330.

The scheduling order provides that appellant Goldsmith's openingbrief is due by January 29, 2016, that appellee Trustee's answeringbrief is due on February 15, 2016, and that a reply brief by theappellant is due on March 2, 2016. Goldsmith and the Trusteesought an extension in order to have an opportunity to engage insettlement discussions.

Judge Dorsey granted the requested extension, which allowsGoldsmith until February 29, 2016 to file an opening brief, andgives the Trustee 30 days after service of the appellant's openingbrief to file a response brief. Any reply by the appellant is tobe filed 14 days after service of the appellee's responsive brief.

LUVU BRANDS: Posts $224,000 Net Income for Second Quarter---------------------------------------------------------Luvu Brands, Inc., filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission its quarterly report on Form 10-Q disclosing net income of $224,392 on $4.88 million of net sales for the three monthsended Dec. 31, 2015, compared to net income of $197,625 on $4.29million of net sales for the same period in 2014.

For the six months ended Dec. 31, 2015, the Company reported netincome of $2,157 on $8.60 million of net sales compared to netincome of $113,302 on $7.87 million of net sales for the six monthsended Dec. 31, 2014.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Company had $3.88 million in total assets,$6.11 million in total liabilities and a total stockholders'deficit of $2.22 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Company has an accumulated deficit of $8,895,330 and a working capital deficit of $1,456,721. This,according to the Company, raises substantial doubt about itsability to continue as a going concern.

Luvu Brands, Inc., formerly known as Liberator, Inc., is aU.S.-based manufacturer that has built several brands in thewellness, lifestyle and casual furniture and seating categories.Its brands are headquartered in Atlanta in a 140,000 square footmanufacturing facility.

The bonds are secured by the county's full faith, credit, andunlimited taxing power pledge.

"The non-investment-grade rating and negative outlook reflect ourvery weak assessment of management conditions based on a structuralimbalance and political instability and gridlock that have weakenedthe county's financial position and operations," said Mr. Little. The council's adopted 2016 budget was largely divergent from whatwas proposed by management and, in S&P's opinion, demonstrates alack of willingness to meaningfully replenish its reserves. Furthermore, despite a change in management through the recentdeparture of its county manager and three new members of the countycouncil, if the county does not enact significant structuralreforms or a structurally sound 2017 budget, S&P's view ofmanagement conditions will likely remain very weak because the lackof reforms will place further pressure on the rating.

"The rating is further constrained by the county's significantlynegative reserve positon over the past three years that we do notexpect to significantly improve in the near term," said Mr. Little,"and its current structural imbalance based on prior-year history." Other factors include its adopted 2016 budget's reliance onnon-recurring revenues, and uncertainty regarding fiscal 2017'sbudget. These factors create uncertainty as to whether the countycan address its significantly diminished reserve position and placedownward pressure on the rating.

"The negative outlook reflects our view that the county's creditrating could be lowered further if structural reforms are notimplemented or liquidity worsens," added Mr. Little. "It alsoreflects the county's very weak flexibility that we do not expectto substantially improve in the near term and our very weakassessment of management. The fiscal position of the countyremains tenuous as it continues to financially recover. In ouropinion, the actions by the county over the last three months havebeen materially negative and are consistent with anon-investment-grade rating," S&P said.

However, in S&P's opinion, the county has options to return tostructural balance and improve its liquidity. Should itdemonstrate a track record of fiscal adjustments that stabilizereserves and liquidity, S&P may revise the outlook to stable.

Continuum Energy, formerly known as Seminole Energy Services,L.L.C., et al., is an integrated energy products and servicescompany with dual headquarter offices in Houston, Texas and Tulsa,Oklahoma. Natural gas production from the southern AppalachianBasin properties of Magnum Hunter Production, Inc. ("MHP"), one ofthe Debtors, is delivered and sold through gas gathering facilitiesowned by Continuum Energy and located in Southeastern Kentucky,northeastern Tennessee, and western Virginia -- Continuum EnergyGathering System.

As of the Petition Date, Continuum Energy and affiliated companieswere owed over $6 million in pre-petition claims arising underthese Agreements, and were listed by the Debtors as the secondlargest unsecured creditor. Subsequent to the Petition Date, theparties have engaged in preliminary discussions to restructurecertain of these Agreements. The parties so far have not reachedagreement concerning restructuring of the Agreements or thetreatment of Continuum Energy's pre-petition cure claims.

"Discussion of the impact of the Debtors' business plan regardingthe Agreements with Continuum Energy may be crucial to thedistributions to the Debtors' creditors and to the feasibility ofthe Plan. Yet, the Disclosure Statement is devoid of anydiscussion of the Agreements, including a description of theDebtors' interests in and obligations under the Agreements and theimpact that assumption or rejection of the Agreements will have onthe Debtors' reorganization efforts and the Debtors' underlyingacreage and production that are served by the Agreements. Forinstance, if the Debtors' reject the Agreements, they will not beable to provide natural gas service to some of their customers andthe customers may not have any other source to obtain the naturalgas. Further, the Continuum Energy Gathering System is the onlyknown way for the Debtors to get the natural gas and NGLs to marketso the Debtors may be forced to shut in the production and wellsthat feed into the gathering system. The economic impact on theDebtors of shutting in that production and cutting off some of theDebtors' customers has not been disclosed or discussed in theDisclosure Statement," Continuum said in its objection.

"Additionally, assuming the Debtors elect to reject the Agreements,the Debtors have scheduled what they believe are the pre-petitionamounts due to Continuum Energy under the Agreements at no lessthan $6,188,867, which Continuum believes may increase upon finalreconciliation. If this claim is allowed, Continuum could be thelargest unsecured creditor participating in distributions from theUnsecured Creditor Cash Pool reserved for allowed unsecured claimsunder the Plan and its claim will significantly dilute the moniesavailable for distribution to general unsecured creditors in thecases."

"The Disclosure Statement presently represents that generalunsecured creditors will receive a distribution of approximately52% (subject to adjustment for professional fees, claimsobjections, etc.), based upon the Debtors' estimate of unsecuredclaims and the amount to be set aside in the Unsecured CreditorCash Pool. However, the impact of Continuum Energy's claims, aswell as the claims of any other similarly situated contract parties(which may significantly reduce the proposed distribution) has notbeen adequately disclosed to creditors," Continuum avers.

Continuum Energy joins in the objections to the DisclosureStatement raised by other parties-in-interest, to the extentapplicable to its interests. Continuum Energy expressly reservesall objections to confirmation of the Debtors' Plan.

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation is an oil and gas companyheadquartered in Irving, Texas that primarily is engaged in theacquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gasreserves in the United States. MHRC and its affiliates owninterests in approximately 431,643 net acres in total and haveproved reserves with an industry value of approximately $234.5million as of December 31, 2015. In the aggregate, MHRC generatedapproximately $391.5 million in revenue from their operations in2014 and generated approximately $169.3 million in revenues fromtheir operations for the ten months ended October 31, 2015.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Debtors reported approximately $1.1billion in total liabilities, as well as $416.3 million in statedvalue of preferred stock. The Debtors' significant funded debtobligations include: (a) approximately $70 million in principalamount of obligations under the Debtors' Bridge Financing Facility;(b) approximately $336.6 million in principal amount of obligationsunder the Debtors' second lien credit agreement; (c) approximately$13.2 million in principal amount of Equipment and Real EstateNotes; and (d) approximately $600 million in principal amount ofNotes.

MAGNUM HUNTER: Disclosure Statement Hearing Adjourned to Feb. 19----------------------------------------------------------------Counsel to Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation and itsdebtor-affiliates notified the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that the Feb.11 hearing on the Disclosure Statement explaining their proposedbankruptcy-exit plan has been adjourned to Feb. 19, 2016, at 1:00p.m., prevailing Eastern time.

Objections to approval of the Disclosure Statement were filed by(a) Continuum Midstream, L.L.C., and Continuum Energy Services,L.L.C., and (b) Kanbar Spirits, Inc., and the Maurice S. KanbarRevocable Trust under agreement dated June 7, 2001, with theobjectors asking that their agreements with the Debtors included inthe Disclosure Statement. Another objection was filed by Arjun S.Rautela, who is acting pro se, and wants an equity committee toevaluate the inconsistent asset values presented by the Debtors.

The Debtors have proposed a voting record date of Feb. 11, 2016, aMarch 21 deadline to cast votes, and a March 28 plan confirmationhearing.

Debt-for-Equity Plan

As reported in the Jan. 22, 2016 edition of the TCR, Magnum HunterResources and its affiliated debtors filed a proposed Chapter 11plan of reorganization that provides for the reorganization of theDebtors as a going concern through a debt-for-equity conversion ofsubstantially all of the Debtors' remaining pre- and postpetitionfunded indebtedness.

The key element of the Plan is the agreement of creditors toconvert their pre- and postpetition funded debt claims, includingthe DIP facility claims of up to $200 million, second lien claimsof $336.6 million, and note claims of $600 million, into new commonequity. Specifically, the DIP Facility Lenders shall receive theirpro rata share of 28.8 percent of the new common equity, the secondlien lenders will receive their Pro Rata share of 36.87 percent ofthe New Common Equity, and the Noteholders shall receive their ProRata share of 31.33 percent of the New Common Equity (all of whichis subject to dilution by the Management Incentive Plan).

Moreover, the holders of the equipment and real estate notes withprincipal totaling $13.2 million will have their claimsreinstated.

The holders of general unsecured claims will receive their pro ratashare of the unsecured creditor cash pool. It is currentlyintended that the unsecured creditor cash pool will be $20,000,000,which amount may be subject to the costs of any professional feesor other expenses incurred as part of the claims reconciliationprocess. The Disclosure Statement still has blanks as to theprojected total amount of unsecured claims and the estimatedpercentage recovery by the class.

The terms of the prearranged restructuring are set forth in aRestructuring Support Agreement, which was signed by partiesholding in the aggregate of approximately 75 percent in principalamount of the Debtors' prepetition funded debt. Specifically, theRestructuring Support Agreement was executed by (a) holders ofsubstantially all of the outstanding principal amount under the $70million bridge financing facility, (b) holders of approximately66.5 percent of the outstanding principal amount under the SecondLien Credit Agreement, and (c) holders of approximately 79 percentof the outstanding principal amount of the Notes.

A copy of the Disclosure Statement and Plan filed Jan. 7, 2016, isavailable for free at:

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation is an oil and gas companyheadquartered in Irving, Texas that primarily is engaged in theacquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gasreserves in the United States. MHRC and its affiliates owninterests in approximately 431,643 net acres in total and haveproved reserves with an industry value of approximately $234.5million as of December 31, 2015. In the aggregate, MHRC generatedapproximately $391.5 million in revenue from their operations in2014 and generated approximately $169.3 million in revenues fromtheir operations for the ten months ended October 31, 2015.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Debtors reported approximately $1.1billion in total liabilities, as well as $416.3 million in statedvalue of preferred stock. The Debtors' significant funded debtobligations include: (a) approximately $70 million in principalamount of obligations under the Debtors' Bridge Financing Facility;(b) approximately $336.6 million in principal amount of obligationsunder the Debtors' second lien credit agreement; (c) approximately$13.2 million in principal amount of Equipment and Real EstateNotes; and (d) approximately $600 million in principal amount ofNotes.

MAGNUM HUNTER: Kanbar Wants Plan Outline to Discuss Joint Ventures------------------------------------------------------------------Kanbar Spirits, Inc., and the Maurice S. Kanbar Revocable Trustunder agreement dated June 7, 2001, tell the Bankruptcy Court thatapproval of the Disclosure Statement explaining Magnum HunterResources Corporation, et al.'s Chapter 11 plan must be deniedbecause the plan outline fails to provide "adequate information"that would allow parties to intelligently vote for the proposedplan, particularly with respect to the Debtors' proposed treatmentof the partnerships and joint ventures in which Kanbar is partnersand a joint venturer with one or more of the Debtors.

Kanbar is involved in multiple partnerships and joint ventures inwhich one or more of the Debtors is also a partner or jointventurer. These partnerships include: (1) NGAS Partners 2004-2,Ltd., (2) NGAS Partners 2005-A, Ltd., (3) NGAS Partners 2005-B,Ltd., and (4) NGAS Partners 2005-C, Ltd. Under these partnerships,the parties agreed to develop and produce oil and gas fromproperties located primarily in Kentucky. These particularpartnerships involve Daugherty Petroleum, Inc., predecessor ofMagnum Hunter Resources Corporation and/or Magnum HunterProduction, Inc., two of the Debtors in the Chapter 11proceedings.

These partnerships and joint ventures were investment vehiclesoffered through the Debtors directly and marketed through brokersand were largely geared to retail investors, like Kanbar. Kanbar'sinvestment in these partnerships and joint ventures exceeds $20million. It is believed that there are hundreds of similarpartnerships and joint ventures involving the Debtors and otherretail investors. There is no mention of these partnerships andjoint ventures in the Disclosure Statement; nor is there anymention of the Debtors intentions concerning its rights andinterests in these partnerships and joint ventures.

"As a fundamental and threshold matter, the Disclosure Statementwholly fails to advise creditors and equity holders about theDebtors' interests in these partnerships and joint ventures, theobligations of the Debtors as partners and joint venturers, andtheir effect on the reorganization efforts of the Debtors. TheDisclosure Statement cannot be approved until there is full andcomplete disclosure of all such partnerships and their assets andliabilities and the Debtors' proportional interest in the same,"Kanbar tells the Court.

"Moreover, the Debtors must provide specific information concerningthe effect of bankruptcy on these partnerships and joint ventures. For example, whether the Debtors are going to voluntarily seekdissolution of such partnerships and co-ventures under theoperative agreements and distribute assets to the partners afterpayment of outstanding liabilities consistent with applicable statelaw; whether the bankruptcy itself acted to terminate thesepartnerships through the bankruptcy of one or more of the partners;and whether and to what extent the Debtors assert that theproperties and other assets owned by these partnerships and jointventures are estate property."

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation is an oil and gas companyheadquartered in Irving, Texas that primarily is engaged in theacquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gasreserves in the United States. MHRC and its affiliates owninterests in approximately 431,643 net acres in total and haveproved reserves with an industry value of approximately $234.5million as of December 31, 2015. In the aggregate, MHRC generatedapproximately $391.5 million in revenue from their operations in2014 and generated approximately $169.3 million in revenues fromtheir operations for the ten months ended October 31, 2015.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Debtors reported approximately $1.1billion in total liabilities, as well as $416.3 million in statedvalue of preferred stock. The Debtors' significant funded debtobligations include: (a) approximately $70 million in principalamount of obligations under the Debtors' Bridge Financing Facility;(b) approximately $336.6 million in principal amount of obligationsunder the Debtors' second lien credit agreement; (c) approximately$13.2 million in principal amount of Equipment and Real EstateNotes; and (d) approximately $600 million in principal amount ofNotes.

MAGNUM HUNTER: Wins Nod to Assume Restructuring Support Agreement-----------------------------------------------------------------Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation and its debtor-affiliates onFeb. 9, 2016, obtained authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe District of Delaware to assume a restructuring supportagreement with certain lenders.

As reported in the Jan. 29, 2016 edition of the TCR, theRestructuring Support Agreement contemplates consummation of achapter 11 plan of reorganization that provides for the conversionof substantially all of the Debtors' prepetition funded debtobligations into newly-issued common equity of reorganized MHRC,which eliminates virtually all future interest burden. Under theRestructuring Support Agreement, the DIP Facility will also convertinto New Common Equity and general unsecured claimants are expectedto receive a significant cash recovery. In addition, all of theexisting equity interests in MHRC will be cancelled.

The Term Sheet attached to the Restructuring Support Agreementcontains the following material terms:

* Certain Second Lien Lenders and Noteholders will backstop the DIP Facility, a $200 million multi-draw term-loan with the proceeds to be used for general corporate purposes, to fund administration of the Debtors' chapter 11 cases, and to repay the Bridge Financing Facility;

* The Bridge Financing Lenders will receive payment in full from the proceeds of the DIP Facility (upon final approval of the DIP Facility);

* The DIP Lenders will receive on account of their claims their pro rata share of 28.80% of the New Common Equity, subject to dilution on account of the Management Incentive Plan;

* The Second Lien Lenders will receive on account of their claims their pro rata share of 36.87% of the New Common Equity subject to dilution on account of the Management Incentive Plan;

* The Noteholders will receive on account of their claims their pro rata share of 31.33% of the New Common Equity subject to dilution on account of the Management Incentive Plan;

* The Real Estate and Equipment Notes will be reinstated;

* General Unsecured Creditors will receive a projected blended cash recovery of approximately 80% of the total amount of General Unsecured Claims;

* All existing equity interests in MHRC, including the Preferred Equity, will be cancelled;

* Certain issues among the Debtors, the Second Lien Lenders, and the Noteholders will be settled pursuant to the Plan;

* The Plan will contain customary release and exculpation provisions, including releases of certain third parties; and

* As a condition precedent to emergence, the Debtors will pay "[a]ll of the Backstoppers' reasonable and documented professional fees (including legal and financial and any other special advisors retained by the Ad Hoc Group of Second Lien Lenders and the Ad Hoc Group of Unsecured Noteholders either before or during the Chapter 11 Cases) and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the Restructuring or any other matter in connection thereto, including, without limitation, those fees and expenses incurred during the Chapter 11 Cases."

The RSA intended to facilitate the expeditious resolution of theChapter 11 cases and provides that the RSA Parties may terminatethe RSA in the event that the Debtors do not meet the Milestones. The Milestones contemplate the following timeline:

* no later than February 12, 2016, (i) the Court will have entered (x) an order approving the Disclosure Statement and (y) an order authorizing the assumption of the Restructuring Support Agreement; and (ii) no later than four days after entry of the order approving the Disclosure Statement, the Debtors will have commenced solicitation on the Plan;

* no later than March 28, 2016, the Court will have commenced the Confirmation Hearing on the Plan;

* no later than April 1, 2016, the Court will have entered an order confirming the Plan; and

* no later than April 15, 2016, the Debtors will have consummated the transactions contemplated by the Plan.

The RSA is supported by creditors holding substantially all of theDebtors' first lien debt, approximately 66.5% in principal amountof the Debtors' second lien debt, and approximately 79% inprincipal amount of the Debtors' senior unsecured notes.

A copy of the Order and the Restructuring Support Agreement isavailable for free at:

Irving, Texas-based Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation, an oil andgas company that primarily engaged, through its subsidiaries, inthe acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gasreserves in the United States, said these macroeconomic factors,coupled with the their substantial debt obligations and natural gasgathering and transportation costs, strained their ability tosustain the weight of their capital structure and devote thecapital necessary to maintain and grow their businesses. MHRC'stotal number of drilling rigs in operation in the United States isjust 38 percent of the number of rigs that were in operation justone year ago.

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation and 19 of its affiliates filedChapter 11 bankruptcy petitions (Bankr. D. Del. Proposed Lead CaseNo. 15-12533) on Dec. 15, 2015. The petition was signed by Gary C.Evans, the chairman and CEO.

MALIBU LIGHTING: CGPC Buys NCOC Pet Bedding Business for $61MM--------------------------------------------------------------National Consumer Outdoors Corporation, formerly known as DallasManufacturing Company, Inc., a debtor-affiliate of Malibu LightingCorporation, won approval from the Bankruptcy Court to sell its petbedding and pet accessories business to Central Garden and PetCompany for $61 million in cash plus the assumption ofliabilities.

The Debtor on Oct. 27, 2015, won approval to commence a saleprocess for substantially all of its operating assets.

At the behest of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, thebidding procedures order provided among other things that thefailure of the Committee to object to a credit bid put forth byComerica Bank or the Court's approval of any such credit bid shallnot (a) prejudice or impair the rights of the Committee tochallenge the nature, extent, validity, priority, perfection oramount of Comerica's alleged liens, security interests and claimsor (b) release Comerica from any causes of action which can bebrought by or on behalf of the Debtor's estate.

The approved bid procedures provided that the Summit unit will beentitled to a break-up fee in the amount of $942,500 and expensereimbursement of up to $400,000 if it is not the Successful Bidderat the auction. The parties originally requested that the break-upfee be set at $1,117,500 and the expense reimbursement be capped at$225,000.

Nov. 17 Auction

Upon conclusion of the auction, the Debtor determined that thehighest or otherwise best bidder was Central Garden and Pet Company(the "Successful Bidder") and the second highest or otherwise bestbidder was DMC Acquisition Co., LLC, an affiliate of OpenGateCapital Partners I, LP (the "Backup Bidder").

Following a sale hearing, the Court entered an order approving thesale of the assets to Central Garden for a purchase price of $61million in cash plus the assumption of liabilities.

The Debtors estimated both assets and liabilities of $10 million to$50 million.

MLC was a manufacturer and supplier of outdoor and landscapelighting products, such as solar and low voltage lights and homesecurity lights, including the parts and accessories associatedwith these products.

ODC was a manufacturer and supplier of a variety of consumer goods,including (a) outdoor cooking products, such as outdoor gas grills,charcoal grills, smokers and fryers, (b) hand held lightingproducts, such as flashlights and spotlights, (c) landscapelighting products, and (d) parts and accessories associated withthe foregoing products.

MLC and ODC are currently winding down operations as a result ofthe termination of a business relationship with principal customer,Home Depot.

NCOC is a manufacturer and supplier of both branded and privatelabel pet bedding and pet accessory products. NCOC manufacturesbeds, accessories, and deodorizers for dogs as well as beds,scratching posts, and toys for cats. In addition, NCOC markets andsells boat covers manufactured primarily from Chinese suppliers.

MALIBU LIGHTING: Expeditors Asks for Relief From Stay-----------------------------------------------------In the Chapter 11 cases of Malibu Lighting Corporation, et al.,Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. and its subsidiaries,including Expeditors Canada, Inc., filed a motion seeking relieffrom the automatic stay as to its liens and security interests.

Expeditors is a non-vessel owned common carrier, freight forwarder,customs broker, warehouseman and provider of distribution and otherlogistics services.

Before the Petition Date, Expeditors transported goods ininternational and domestic commerce for the Debtors. In the courseof performing such services, Expeditors acquired possession,custody and control of, inter alia, goods belonging to the Debtorsor in which the Debtors claim an interest and various commercialdocuments, including documents of title.

Expeditors has possession, custody or control of certain goods ofthe Debtors -- Petition Date Cargo -- and related documents, havinga declared value of approximately $4.9 million. On information andbelief the Petition Date Cargo consists of lighting fixtures, partsand accessories. To the extent the Debtors abandon the PetitionDate Cargo, Expeditors anticipates that the value of the PetitionDate Cargo will decrease significantly.

As of the Petition Date, MLC and Brinkman owe Expeditors $38,677 inthe aggregate -- Expeditors' "Claims" -- for transportation,storage and preservation of goods and other property, includingfreight, storage, distribution, Customs duties and fees, demurrage,detention, and other charges, plus late charges on the foregoing at18% per annum and attorneys' fees. All charges continue to accrue.Significantly, storage charges continue to accrue with respect tothe Petition Date Cargo at a rate of approximately $2,720 per weekfor Brinkman related storage charges and $4,845 per week for MLCrelated storage charges.

In the case at bar, the Debtors have represented to Expeditors thatthey are abandoning their interest in the Petition Date Cargo. Further, the Debtors have no equity in the Petition Date Cargo,Expeditors tells the Court. Therefore, Expeditors says it isentitled to relief from the automatic stay.

However, storage charges are accruing at a substantial rate.Therefore, it is essential that the automatic stay be terminatedquickly to mitigate potential loss and expense to Expeditors,Expeditors tells the Court.

The Debtors estimated both assets and liabilities of $10 million to$50 million.

MLC was a manufacturer and supplier of outdoor and landscapelighting products, such as solar and low voltage lights and homesecurity lights, including the parts and accessories associatedwith these products.

ODC was a manufacturer and supplier of a variety of consumer goods,including (a) outdoor cooking products, such as outdoor gas grills,charcoal grills, smokers and fryers, (b) hand held lightingproducts, such as flashlights and spotlights, (c) landscapelighting products, and (d) parts and accessories associated withthe foregoing products.

MLC and ODC are currently winding down operations as a result ofthe termination of a business relationship with principal customer,Home Depot.

NCOC is a manufacturer and supplier of both branded and privatelabel pet bedding and pet accessory products. NCOC manufacturesbeds, accessories, and deodorizers for dogs as well as beds,scratching posts, and toys for cats. In addition, NCOC markets andsells boat covers manufactured primarily from Chinese suppliers.

MALIBU LIGHTING: Has Until May 4 to Decide on Unexpired Leases--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware extendeduntil May 4, 2016, Malibu Lighting Corporation, et al.'s time toassume or reject unexpired leases of nonresidential real property.

Debtors Outdoor Direct Corporation and MLC are currently windingdown their operations and liquidating their remaining assets -- aprocess that began prepetition. In this relation, they have notyet concluded the sale of ODC's and MLC's remaining assets and mustcontinue to honor obligations under the asset purchase agreementwith respect to leases and agreements covered under that agreement. The Debtors are current on their rental payments owed to theaffected landlords to the unexpired leases.

MLC was a manufacturer and supplier of outdoor and landscapelighting products, such as solar and low voltage lights and homesecurity lights, including the parts and accessories associatedwith these products.

ODC was a manufacturer and supplier of a variety of consumer goods,including (a) outdoor cooking products, such as outdoor gas grills,charcoal grills, smokers and fryers, (b) hand held lightingproducts, such as flashlights and spotlights, (c) landscapelighting products, and (d) parts and accessories associated withthe foregoing products.

MLC and ODC are currently winding down operations as a result ofthe termination of a business relationship with principal customer,Home Depot.

NCOC is a manufacturer and supplier of both branded and privatelabel pet bedding and pet accessory products. NCOC manufacturesbeds, accessories, and deodorizers for dogs as well as beds,scratching posts, and toys for cats. In addition, NCOC markets andsells boat covers manufactured primarily from Chinese suppliers.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed five creditors to theofficial committee of unsecured creditors. The committee isrepresented by Lowenstein Sandler PC.

MMC has $13.7 million fixed rate series 2012A bonds and $26.7million fixed rate 2015A bonds that are insured by Cal-MortgageLoan Insurance Division. The series 2012A bonds have an insuredonly rating of 'A+'. Fitch was not asked to rate the series 2015Abonds.

The Rating Outlook is revised to Positive from Stable.

SECURITY

Debt payments are secured by a pledge of the gross revenues of theobligated group and a mortgage lien. There is a debt servicereserve fund. The consolidated financials include a subsidiary, asurgery center that is non-obligated. The obligated group accountedfor 99.7% of total assets and 97.4% of total revenue of theconsolidated entity in fiscal 2014 (Oct. 31 year end). Fitch'sanalysis is based on the consolidated entity.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

STRONG OPERATING PERFORMANCE: The Rating Outlook revision toPositive from Stable reflects MMC's very strong operatingperformance in fiscal 2015 that led to almost a doubling of itsunrestricted cash and investments. An upgrade is precluded at thistime given the uncertainty around both the permanence of theprovider fee program that has greatly benefited MMC, and expectedsizeable investments in an integrated electronic medical record.

SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE IMPACT FROM PROVIDER FEE: California enacted ahospital provider fee in 2010 to draw down additional federal fundsfor Medi-Cal services, and the current program expires in December2016. While MMC has significantly benefited from the provider feeprogram, its profitability has been volatile over the last severalyears due to the timing of recording the provider fee net incomerelated to the significant lag in receiving the various approvalsfrom the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Fiscal2015 performance includes a portion of provider fee funds relatedto fiscal 2014. Provider fee funds (net of pledge payments) totaled$6.9 million in fiscal 2013, $1.3 million in fiscal 2014 and $18.4million in fiscal 2015.

GOOD DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE: With strong operating performance and amoderate debt burden, debt service coverage is very good for therating level. Maximum annual debt service (MADS) coverage by EBITDAwas 7.4x in fiscal 2015 compared to 3.2x in fiscal 2014 and 3.4x infiscal 2013.

ELEVATED CAPITAL SPENDING EXPECTED: After MMC opened a three-storyhospital expansion in January 2013, capital needs have beenmanageable. However, higher capital spending is expected over thenext two years due to the MMC's plan to implement an integratedelectronic medical record. This project is expected to increaseboth capital and operating costs over the next two years.

LIQUIDITY IMPROVEMENT: As of Oct. 31, 2015, MMC had $61.9 millionof unrestricted cash and investments (114.7 days cash on hand[DCOH] and 90.8% cash to debt), compared to $33.4 million the prioryear (62.2 DCOH and 47.2% cash to debt). Management has beencommitted to rebuilding liquidity since funding half of itsexpansion project from equity. The significant improvement inliquidity was driven by the receipt of the provider fee funds.

MANAGEMENT ADDRESSING REDUCED REIMBUSEMENT ENVIRONMENT: MMC hasbeen proactive in entering into alternative payer arrangements togain experience as the reimbursement model shifts more to valuebased. MMC is participating in bundled payments, an accountablecare organization, and a program to manage high utilizers ofmedical services.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

CLARITY ON PROVIDER FEE PROGRAM: Although the majority of MMC'sratios are currently in line with the 'BBB' category medians, itssmall revenue base subjects performance to volatility. Given thelarge impact of the provider fee program, upward movement of therating will be dependent on ongoing funding after 2016.

CREDIT PROFILE

MMC is located in Placerville, CA approximately 45 miles east ofSacramento, and operates a 113 bed general acute-care communityhospital and several clinics. MMC maintains a good market positionin its service area, with competition mainly from Kaiser Permanenteas well as other tertiary providers in the Sacramento area. Infiscal 2015 (interim financials), MMC generated $230.6 million intotal operating revenue.

Strong Profitability in Fiscal 2015

Operating income in fiscal 2015 was $21.5 million (9.3% operatingmargin), compared to 0.3% operating margin in fiscal 2014 and 2.6%in fiscal 2013. Fiscal 2015 performance was driven by good volumegrowth and $18.4 million of provider fee funds.

The provider fee program has been in place since November 2009(retroactive to April 2009) with various phases and sunset dates;the most recent phase (Phase 4) is running from Jan. 1, 2014 toDec. 31, 2016. The funding from this program has been uneven giventhe timing of CMS approval. The fee for service portion of thePhase 4 program did not receive approval until December 2014.Therefore, the amounts related to calendar year 2014 were notbooked until December 2014. MMC is not subject to the provider feeportion of the provider fee program due to its rural designation,but does make pledge payments, which are fairly minimal (less than$300,000).

The financial benefit from the provider fee program has been $12.8million in fiscal 2012, $6.9 million in fiscal 2013, $1.3 millionin fiscal 2014, $18.4 million in fiscal 2015 and a projected $12million in fiscal 2016. A November 2016 ballot initiative seeks tomake the program permanent. If approved, management estimates theprogram would result in annual funding of $10 million-$13 million.

Conservative Debt Profile

Total par amount of debt outstanding as of Oct. 31, 2015 was $63.4million and includes $26.9 million series 2015A fixed rate, $20million series 2004B auction rate, $13.7 million series 2012A fixedrate and $2.8 million USDA loan and capital leases. All of thebonds are insured by Cal Mortgage, and MMC issued the series 2015Abonds to refinance the series 2004A bonds. Management stated thatthe auction rate bonds have been setting at less than 1%. MADS iscalculated at $5.1 million, down from $5.8 million during lastyear's review. The debt burden is moderate and MADS accounted for2.2% of total revenue in fiscal 2015, compared to the 'BBB'category of 3.6%.

MATADOR RESOURCES: S&P Raises Rating on Sr. Unsecured Debt to 'B'-----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its issue-level rating onDallas-based exploration and production (E&P) company MatadorResources Co.'s senior unsecured debt to 'B' (same level as thecorporate credit rating) from 'B-'. At the same time, S&P removedthe rating from CreditWatch where it placed it with negativeimplications on April 6, 2015. S&P simultaneously revised therecovery rating on this debt to '4', indicating its expectation ofaverage (30% to 50%; higher end of range) recovery in the event ofa payment default, from '5'.

S&P revised its recovery rating and raised its issue-level ratingon Matador's senior unsecured debt based on an increase in thePV-10 valuation of the company's reserves as of year-end 2015,resulting in higher recovery prospects for the senior unsecureddebt.

S&P considers Matador Resources' financial risk profile to beaggressive. The stable outlook reflects S&P's view that MatadorResources will continue to grow its reserves and production whilemaintaining FFO/debt of about 20% and debt/EBITDA of 4x to 4.5x.

S&P could lower the rating if S&P expected FFO/debt to fall below12% or debt/EBITDA to exceed 5x with no near-term remedy, or ifliquidity deteriorated. This would most likely occur if commodityprices were to significantly weaken further, the company did notmeet our oil production growth expectations, or if capital spendingexceeded cash flows by significantly more than currentlycontemplated.

An upgrade would be possible if Matador Resources continues toimprove is operational performance such that the scale of itsreserves and production are more consistent with a weak businessrisk profile, while maintaining adequate liquidity and FFO/debtabove 30%.

MERRIMACK PHARMACEUTICALS: Board OKs $546K Cash Bonus for Execs.----------------------------------------------------------------The Organization and Compensation Committee of the Board ofDirectors of Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. took the followingactions regarding the compensation of the executive officers of theCompany listed below:

* for Robert J. Mulroy, advancing the Company's corporate objectives, strengthening the Company's investor base and setting up the Company for growth as a commercial organization;

* for Yasir B. Al-Wakeel, ensuring adequate funding for the Company, pursuing various corporate development opportunities

and strengthening the Company's investor base;

* for Peter N. Laivins, advancing the Company's last-stage clinical trials, including in additional indications for ONIVYDE; and

* for William M. McClements, developing the organizational capabilities and infrastructure necessary to support the Company's continued growth as a commercial organization.

The general management contribution of each executive officer willbe evaluated retrospectively and will broadly focus on overallcontributions during the year to the improvement of processes andefficiency, the development of human and scientific capacity andthe development and management of stakeholders, including partners,collaborators, investigators, stockholders and licensees, ratherthan on specific, pre-determined criteria.

Each executive officer is eligible to receive an annual cash bonusunder the 2016 Bonus Program up to a fixed percentage of his basesalary. For 2016, Mr. Mulroy is eligible to receive an annual cashbonus of up to 50% of his 2016 base salary and each of Dr.Al-Wakeel, Mr. Laivins and Mr. McClements is eligible to receive anannual cash bonus of up to 35% of his respective 2016 base salary.

For Mr. Mulroy, the Committee will weigh each of the threeforegoing elements equally when determining the percentage of theannual cash bonus that he will receive.

For each of Dr. Al-Wakeel, Mr. Laivins and Mr. McClements, theCommittee will look at the three foregoing elements as a whole. Ifthe Committee determines that the executive officer hassubstantially satisfied the elements as a whole, then the executiveofficer will receive his full annual cash bonus. On the otherhand, if the Committee determines that the executive officer hasnot substantially satisfied the elements as a whole, then theexecutive officer will not receive an annual cash bonus.

About Merrimack

Cambridge, Mass.-based Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc., abiopharmaceutical company discovering, developing and preparing tocommercialize innovative medicines consisting of noveltherapeutics paired with companion diagnostics. The Company'sinitial focus is in the field of oncology. The Company has fiveprograms in clinical development. In it most advanced program,the Company is conducting a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial.

Merrimack reported a net loss of $83.6 million on $103 million ofcollaboration revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, comparedwith a net loss of $131 million on $47.8 million of collaborationrevenues during the prior year.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $103 million in total assets,$243 million in total liabilities, $481,000 in non-controllinginterest and a $141.14 million total stockholders' deficit.

MGM RESORTS: Capital World Holds 4.3% Stake as of Dec. 31---------------------------------------------------------In an amended Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Capital World Investors reported that as of Dec. 31,2015, it beneficially owns 24,306,442 shares of common stock ofMGM Resorts International representing 4.3 percent of the sharesoutstanding. A copy of the regulatory filing is available for freeat http://is.gd/KhMfAa

About MGM Resorts

MGM Resorts International (NYSE: MGM) a global hospitalitycompany, operating a portfolio of destination resort brandsincluding Bellagio, MGM Grand, Mandalay Bay and The Mirage. TheCompany also owns 51% of MGM China Holdings Limited, which ownsthe MGM Macau resort and casino and is in the process ofdeveloping a gaming resort in Cotai, and 50% of CityCenter in LasVegas, which features ARIA resort and casino. For moreinformation about MGM Resorts International, visit the Company'sWeb site at www.mgmresorts.com.

MGM Resorts reported a net loss attributable to the Company of$156.60 million in 2013 following a net loss attributable to theCompany of $1.76 billion in 2012.

As of June 30, 2015, the Company had $27.1 billion in total assets,$17.9 billion in total liabilities, $5 million in redeemablenoncontrolling interest and $9.1 billion in total stockholders'equity.

* sell assets or consolidate with another company or sell all or substantially all assets;

* enter into transactions with affiliates;

* allow certain subsidiaries to transfer assets; and

* enter into sale and lease-back transactions.

Our ability to comply with these provisions may be affected byevents beyond our control. The breach of any such covenants orobligations not otherwise waived or cured could result in adefault under the applicable debt obligations and could triggeracceleration of those obligations, which in turn could triggercross defaults under other agreements governing our long-termindebtedness. Any default under our senior secured creditfacility or the indentures governing our other debt couldadversely affect our growth, our financial condition, our resultsof operations and our ability to make payments on our debt, andcould force us to seek protection under the bankruptcy laws."

* * *

As reported by the TCR on Nov. 14, 2011, Standard & Poor's RatingsServices raised its corporate credit rating on MGM ResortsInternational to 'B-' from 'CCC+'. In March 2012, S&P revisedthe outlook to positive from stable.

"The revision of our rating outlook to positive reflects strongperformance in 2011 and our expectation that MGM will continue tobenefit from the improving performance trends on the Las VegasStrip," S&P said.

In March 2012, Moody's Investors Service affirmed its B2 corporatefamily rating and probability of default rating. The affirmationof MGM's B2 Corporate Family Rating reflects Moody's view thatpositive lodging trends in Las Vegas will continue through 2012which will help improve MGM's leverage and coverage metrics,albeit modestly. Additionally, the company's declaration of a $400million dividend ($204 million to MGM) from its 51% owned Macaujoint venture due to be paid shortly will also improve thecompany's liquidity profile. The ratings also consider MGM'srecent bank amendment that resulted in about 50% of its$3.5 billion senior credit facility being extended one year from2014 to 2015.

As reported by the TCR on Sept. 29, 2014, Fitch Ratings hasupgraded MGM Resorts International's (MGM) and MGM China HoldingsLtd's (MGM China) IDRs to 'B+' from 'B' and 'BB' from 'BB-',respectively. Fitch's upgrade of MGM's IDR to 'B+' and thePositive Outlook reflect the company's strong performance on theLas Vegas Strip and in Macau as well as Fitch's longer-termpositive outlooks for these markets.

MID-STATES SUPPLY: Meeting of Creditors Set for March 18--------------------------------------------------------The meeting of creditors of Mid−States Supply Company Inc. is setto be held on March 18, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., according to a filingwith the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District ofMissouri.

The meeting will be held at U.S. Courthouse, Trustee Hearing Room2110B, 400 East 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri.

The court overseeing the bankruptcy case of a company schedules themeeting of creditors usually about 30 days after the bankruptcypetition is filed. The meeting is called the "341 meeting" afterthe section of the Bankruptcy Code that requires it.

A representative of the company is required to appear at themeeting and answer questions under oath. The meeting is presidedover by the U.S. trustee, the Justice Department's bankruptcywatchdog.

About Mid-States Supply

Founded and headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, Mid-StatesSupply Company, Inc., supplier of pipes, valves and fittings toethanol, pipeline and power industries in the United States, fileda Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Case No.16-40271) on Feb. 7, 2016. The petition was signed by Stuart Noyesas chief restructuring officer. The Debtor estimated both assetsand liabilities in the range of $50 million to $100 million.

MID-STATES SUPPLY: U.S. Trustee Forms Seven-Member Committee------------------------------------------------------------The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed seven creditors ofMid−States Supply Company Inc. to serve on the official committeeof unsecured creditors.

Official creditors' committees have the right to employ legal andaccounting professionals and financial advisors, at a debtor'sexpense. They may investigate the debtor's business and financialaffairs. Importantly, official committees serve as fiduciaries tothe general population of creditors they represent.

About Mid-States Supply

Founded and headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, Mid-StatesSupply Company, Inc., supplier of pipes, valves and fittings toethanol, pipeline and power industries in the United States, fileda Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Case No.16-40271) on Feb. 7, 2016. The petition was signed by Stuart Noyesas chief restructuring officer. The Debtor estimated both assetsand liabilities in the range of $50 million to $100 million.

MORGANS HOTEL: Ameriprise Financial Holds 2.7% Stake as of Dec. 31------------------------------------------------------------------In an amended Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Ameriprise Financial, Inc. and Columbia ManagementInvestment Advisers, LLC disclosed that as of Dec. 31, 2015, theybeneficially own 950,632 shares of common stock of Morgans HotelGroup Co. representing 2.74 percent of the shares outstanding. Acopy of the regulatory filing is available for free at:

Based in New York, Morgans Hotel Group Co. (Nasdaq: MHGC) --http://www.morganshotelgroup.com/-- is widely credited as the creator of the first "boutique" hotel and a continuing leader ofthe hotel industry's boutique sector. Morgans Hotel Groupoperates and owns, or has an ownership interest in, Morgans,Royalton and Hudson in New York, Delano and Shore Club in SouthBeach, Mondrian in Los Angeles and South Beach, Clift in SanFrancisco, Ames in Boston, and Sanderson and St Martins Lane inLondon. Morgans Hotel Group and an equity partner also own theHard Rock Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas and related assets. MorgansHotel Group also manages hotels in Isla Verde, Puerto Rico andPlaya del Carmen, Mexico. Morgans Hotel Group has other propertytransactions in various stages of completion, including projectsin SoHo, New York and Palm Springs, California.

Morgans Hotel reported a net loss attributable to commonstockholders of $66.6 million on $235 million of total revenues forthe year ended Dec. 31, 2014, compared with a net loss attributableto common stockholders of $58.5 million on $236 million of totalrevenues during the prior year.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $515 million in total assets,$774 million in total liabilities and a $259 million total deficit.

On Sept. 29, 2015, Debtor filed a Disclosure Statement in supportof a Plan of Reorganization together with a proposed Plan.

The Plan offered to return 16 cents on the dollar to bondholdersbut let its owner retain control of the company in exchange for acontribution of $220,000 in cash plus other assets. The 680bondholders who each issued $5,000 in bonds prior to the company'sbankruptcy filing was to be paid at a rate of $800 per bond within90 days of approval of the plan. PNC Bank, a secured creditor,will be paid at $23,459 per month in accordance with the terms ofthe original mortgage note until paid in full while generalunsecured creditors will receive a premium of 10% of the acceptedamounts of the claims.

In its Motion to Withdraw, the Debtor noted that it has recentlyentered into a Fourth Amended Final Stipulated Order authorizingthe use of cash collateral which Order, among other things,extendsthe use of cash collateral from Nov. 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016.

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company as trustee for certainbondholders has concurred with the entry of the Cash CollateralOrder.

A portion of the Order deals with the subject of Debtor's Plan ofReorganization stating in paragraph 8, page 9, the following:

"Withdrawal of Plan. The Debtor's Plan of Reorganization dated

September 29, 2015 [Docket 195] and Disclosure Statement in support of Debtor's Plan of Reorganization [Doc. 196] are hereby withdrawn without prejudice."

The Debtor believes and avers that M&T concurs with the Motion toWithdraw.

Morningstar Marketplace, LTD, owns a flea market business locatedalong Route 30 in Jackson Township, York County, Pennsylvania. Andrew W. Lentz created the Marketplace to serve farmers,antiquaries and vendors and the general consumer and collectorpopulation within the surrounding area. Built in 1999, theMarketplace site consists of 3 side-by-side buildings totaling51,440 square feet, and two free standing pavilions measuring 30'by 50' and 50' by 50'. The site has 190 vendor spaces in its shedarea and 200 outside vendor spaces in the upper parking lot.

Andrew Lentz is the general partner of Morningstar Marketplace,LTD, and his wife owns the remaining 19%. Morningstar Marketplace,Inc., a related company owned by Mr. Lentz, is the operator of thesite.

The Debtor estimated $100 million to $500 million in assets andliabilities.

Judge Mary D France presides over the case. Attorneys at Smigel,Anderson & Sacks, LLP serve as counsel to the Debtor.

MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Has $613-Mil. Net Assets in Liquidation-----------------------------------------------------------Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust filed with the Securities andExchange Commission its quarterly report disclosing $669.50 millionin total assets, $56.40 million in total liabilities and $613.10million in net assets in liquidation.

The GUC Trust's sources of liquidity are principally the funds itholds for the payment of liquidation and administrative costs, andto a significantly lesser degree, the earnings on such fundsinvested by it. In addition, as a result of the liquidation of allthe GUC Trust's holdings of New GM Securities during the quarterended Sept. 30, 2015, the GUC Trust holds Distributable Cash fordistribution to GUC Trust beneficiaries. The GUC Trust holds thosefunds as cash and cash equivalents and also invests such funds incertain marketable securities, primarily U.S. Treasury bills, aspermitted by the Plan and the GUC Trust Agreement.

During the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2015, the GUC Trust'’sholdings of cash and cash equivalents decreased approximately $13million from approximately $37.5 million to approximately $24.5million. The decrease was primarily due to cash paid forliquidation and administrative costs of $11 million and cash paidfor Residual Wind-Down Claims of $6 million, offset in part byreceipts of cash dividends on holdings of New GM Common Stock of$4.1 million. Cash distributions of approximately $130 millionduring the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2015, were funded from theproceeds of the liquidation of New GM Securities of $741.7 million,with the balance of such proceeds remaining largely invested inMarketable Securities.

During the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2015, the funds invested bythe GUC Trust in marketable securities increased approximately$612.3 million, from approximately $30.9 million to approximately$643.2 million. The increase was due primarily to the liquidationof all the GUC Trust's holdings of New GM Securities during thequarter ended Sept. 30, 2015. The GUC Trust earned approximately$0.4 million in interest income on such investments during theperiod.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the GUC Trust held approximately $667.6million in cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities. Ofsuch amount, approximately $620.9 million relates to DistributableCash (including Dividend Cash), a portion of which the GUC TrustAdministrator is permitted to set aside from distribution and toappropriate with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court or TrustMonitor, as applicable, in order to fund additional costs andincome tax liabilities (including Dividend Taxes, Investment IncomeTaxes and Taxes on Distribution) as they become due. Included inDistributable Cash at Dec. 31, 2015, is approximately $17.3 millionof Dividend Cash. Dividend Cash will be distributed to holders ofsubsequently Resolved Allowed Claims and GUC Trust Units in respectof Distributable Cash that they receive, unless such dividends arein respect of Distributable Cash that is appropriated by the GUCTrust in accordance with the GUC Trust Agreement to fund the GUCTrust's liquidation and administrative costs, income taxliabilities or shortfalls in Residual Wind-Down Assets.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, Distributable Cash (including Dividend Cash)held by the GUC Trust was set aside as follows: (a) $4.6 millionfor liquidating distributions payable as of that date, (b) $46.6million to fund projected liquidation and administrative costs,including Dividend Taxes and Investment Income Taxes, and (c)$109.7 million to fund potential Taxes on Distribution.

In addition to Distributable Cash (including Dividend Cash), theGUC Trust held $46.7 million in cash and cash equivalents andmarketable securities at Dec. 31, 2015, representing funds held forpayment of costs of liquidation and administration. Of that amount,approximately $30.7 million (comprising approximately $22.2 millionof the remaining Residual Wind-Down Assets, approximately $8.2million of the remaining Administrative Fund and approximately $0.3million in remaining funds designated for the Indenture Trustee /Fiscal and Paying Agent Costs), is required by the GUC TrustAgreement to be returned, upon the winding-up

The U.S. Trustee appointed an Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors and a separate Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors Holding Asbestos-Related Claims. Lawyers at KramerLevin Naftalis & Frankel LLP served as bankruptcy counsel to theCreditors Committee. Attorneys at Butzel Long served as counselon supplier contract matters. FTI Consulting Inc. served asfinancial advisors to the Creditors Committee. Elihu Inselbuch,Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, represented the AsbestosCommittee. Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., served as asbestosvaluation analyst.

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Debtors'Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan on March 29, 2011. The Planwas declared effect on March 31.

On Dec. 15, 2011, Motors Liquidation Company was dissolved. Onthe Dissolution Date, pursuant to the Plan and the MotorsLiquidation Company GUC Trust Agreement, dated March 30, 2011,between the parties thereto, the trust administrator and trustee-- GUC Trust Administrator -- of the Motors Liquidation CompanyGUC Trust, assumed responsibility for the affairs of and certainclaims against MLC and its debtor subsidiaries that were notconcluded prior to the Dissolution Date.

As of June 30, 2015, Motors Liquidation had $860 million in totalassets, $74 million in total liabilities and $786 million in netassets in liquidation.

MURRAY ENERGY: Moody's Lowers CFR to Ca, Outlook Stable-------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service downgraded the ratings of Murray EnergyCorporation, including its corporate family rating to Ca from Caa1,probability of default rating (PDR) to Ca-PD from Caa1-PD, firstlien term loan rating to Caa2 from B2, and the rating on secondlien senior secured notes to C from Caa2. The outlook is stable.

The downgrade reflects Moody's expectation that the company'sleverage metrics and cash flow generation will continue to be understress due to the headwinds facing the coal industry as well as theissues facing its affiliate Foresight Energy GP LLC, in whichMurray holds 50% of limited partner units. As of Sept. 30, 2015,Murray's Debt/ EBITDA, as adjusted, stood at 6.5x and Moody'sexpects it to drift above 7x over the next eighteen months, asEBITDA declines and the company generates negative free cash flows.

In December 2015, Foresight announced that it was notified by theadministrative agent of its secured credit agreement that it was indefault under the terms of the agreement, as a result of the recentdevelopments in the litigation by trustee for the bondholders ofthe company's 2021 Senior Notes. The company continues tonegotiate with its lenders to cure the alleged default events, andthe outcome is uncertain. As of Sept. 30, 2015, the company had$600 million of 2021 Senior Notes outstanding, and $673 millionunder its senior secured bank credit facility. The company doesnot have sufficient liquidity to repay its debt if it were to beaccelerated.

Earlier in the year and effective November 2015, Foresight cut itsquarterly cash distribution to $0.17 per unit for commonunitholders from $0.35-$0.38 over the previous four quarters, whilesuspending its distribution on all subordinated units, which areheld by Murray. This dividend cut will result in Murray receivingno dividends for the quarter. If this dividend policy by Foresightremains in place, it would result in no annual distributions toMurray.

The downgrade also reflects the recent deterioration in seaborneand domestic coal prices, which Moody's expects to persist, puttingpressure on average realizations over the next two years as higherpriced contracts roll off. Moody's expects that the company'sproduction volumes will also be under pressure over the next twoyears, due to the challenging industry conditions.

The ratings continue to also reflect market leadership in NorthernAppalachia (NAPP), operational diversity, solid contract positions,low-cost longwall mines, and low-cost barge and trucktransportation to power plants served. Longer-term challengesinclude managing what we continue to expect will be a difficultenvironment in the coal industry and avoiding unexpected cashoutlays related to the legacy liabilities acquired from CONSOL.

Moody's expects Murray's liquidity to come under pressure over thenext twelve months, which at Sept. 30, 2015, included $282 millionin cash, and a little over $100 million of availability on their$225 million ABL facility maturing in December 2018. Murray'snearest debt maturity is $244 million remaining under secured termloan due in April 2017.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was Global MiningIndustry published in August 2014.

NEW GULF RESOURCES: Can Hire Baker Botts as Bankruptcy Counsel--------------------------------------------------------------New Gulf Resources, LLC, et al., sought and obtained authority fromthe U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to employBaker Botts L.L.P. as bankruptcy counsel despite a formal objectionraised by Andrew R. Vara, Acting U.S. Trustee for Region 3, and aninformal comment filed by an Ad Hoc Committee.

As bankruptcy counsel, Baker Botts is expected to, among otherthings:

a. advising the Debtors with respect to their powers and dutiesas debtors in possession in the continued management and operationof their businesses and properties;

b. advising and consulting on the conduct of the Chapter 11Cases, including all of the legal and administrative requirementsof operating in chapter 11;

c. attending meetings and negotiating with representatives ofcreditors and other parties in interest;

d. taking all necessary actions to protect and preserve theDebtors’ estates, including prosecuting actions on the Debtors'behalf, defending any action commenced against the Debtors, andrepresenting the Debtors in negotiations concerning litigation inwhich the Debtors are involved, including objections to claimsfiled against the Debtors' estates;

f. representing the Debtors in connection with negotiation,documentation and obtaining authority to enter into financingarrangements as may be required, including but not limited to, cashcollateral agreements or financing documents;

g. advising the Debtors in connection with any potential sale ofassets or strategic transaction involving the Debtors or theirassets;

h. appearing before the Court and any appellate courts torepresent the interests of the Debtors' estates;

i. advising the Debtors regarding tax matters;

j. taking any necessary action on behalf of the Debtors tonegotiate, prepare, and obtain approval of a disclosure statementand confirmation of a chapter 11 plan; and

k. performing all other necessary legal services for the Debtorsin connection with the prosecution of the Chapter 11 Cases,including: (i) analyzing the Debtors' leases and contracts and theassumption and assignment or rejection thereof; (ii) analyzing thevalidity of liens against the Debtors; and (iii) advising theDebtors on corporate and litigation matters.

As of the Petition Date, the Debtors did not owe Baker Botts anyamounts for legal services rendered.

C. Luckey McDowell, Esq., a partner at Baker Botts L.L.P., assuresthe Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as that term isdefined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. McDowell, pursuant to the U.S. Trustee Guidelines, disclosesthat Baker Botts has not agreed to a variation of its standard orcustomary billing arrangements for its engagement, except withrespect to a Premium. Mc. McDowell adds that none of the Firm'sprofessionals included in the engagement have varied their ratebased on the geographic location of the Chapter 11 Cases.

Mr. McDowell further discloses that prior to the Petition DateBaker Botts charged the Debtors at a preferred billing rate thatincorporated a discount of approximately 10-15% off of the firm'sstandard billing rates. Baker Botts will continue to charge theDebtors at the preferred rate post-petition, subject to applicationof a Fee Premium. Baker Botts has provided the Debtors with aprospective budget and staffing plan for the Firm's engagement forthe postpetition period.

Mr. McDowell adds that Baker Botts previously disclosed itsrepresentation of Schlumberger Technology Corporation, one of theDebtors' vendors, as a Firm client in unrelated matters. Herelates that since the Petition Date, it has come to his attentionthat Schlumberger has acquired an interest in Vector Seismic DataProcessing Inc., another of the Debtors' vendors. Baker Botts doesnot represent Vector, and the Firm's representation of Schlumbergercontinues to be unrelated to the Debtors, he says.

Court Reserves Ruling on Fee Premium

In accordance with guidance from the Supreme Court and the FifthCircuit, Baker Botts has modified its postpetition fee structure toaccount for the payment uncertainty associated with representing adebtor in bankruptcy. Subject to certain conditions, Baker Botts'aggregate fees incurred during the bankruptcy will be increased by10% (the "Fee Premium"), aligning its bankruptcy fees more closelyto its standard billing rates.

According to Baker Botts, there are two notable conditions to theFee Premium: (1) First, although the Fee Premium will be earned asservices are provided, no portion of the Fee Premium will bepayable until and unless the Bankruptcy Court enters an orderapproving Baker Botts' final fee application; and (2) Second, BakerBotts will waive its right to the entire Fee Premium if, and onlyif, Baker Botts does not incur material fees and expenses defendingagainst any objection with respect to an interim or final feeapplication. If Baker Botts incurs material fees or expenses,Baker Botts will not waive the Fee Premium regardless of theoutcome of the objection, the firm said. The Bankruptcy Court willmake the determination as to whether any those fees and expensesare in fact material for the purposes of the Fee Premium.

The U.S. Trustee complained that Baker Botts seeks to be retainedunder Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not expresslyrely on section 328(a) for pre-approval of its Fee Premium. Nevertheless, the premiseof the Application seeks court approval now for a Fee Premium as aterm and condition of the employment, which is necessarily subjectto review under section 328, and section 328 requires that any termof employment must be reasonable to be approved, the U.S. Trusteefurther complained.

The U.S. Trustee argued that the requested 10% Fee Premium isimpermissible and unreasonable and should not be approved. TheSupreme Court, in Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, ___ U.S. ___, 135S. Ct. 2158 (2015), recently held that section 330(a) does notauthorize a court to approve a law firm's fee for litigating itsfee application. The Firm, the U.S. Trustee further argued, cannotcircumvent ASARCO by having defense fees -- simply renamed as awaivable "Fee Premium" -- approved under section 328 to offset thecost of potential fee litigation. Moreover, the U.S. Trusteeasserted that bankruptcy compensation must be comparable tonon-bankruptcy compensation, and premium compensation by definitionis not comparable and, therefore, not reasonable.

In a certification of counsel, Ryan M. Bartley, Esq., at YoungConaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, said theCourt has advised the Debtors that it would defer consideration ofapproval of the Fee Premium until a later date. The Debtors haveshared with the U.S. Trustee and the Ad Hoc Committee a form oforder, which defers consideration of the Fee Premium and otherwisegrants the Application, and those parties have consented to itsentry.

The Court held that "[c]onsideration, authorization and approval ofthe provisions authorizing the Fee Premium, if any, are subject inall respects to further order of the Court after notice andhearing, and all rights of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Debtors, theU.S. Trustee, and Baker Botts, with respect to the Fee -- whetherin opposition to or support of -- on any grounds are fullyreserved."

Founded in 2011 and headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, New Gulf isan independent oil and natural gas company engaged in theacquisition, development, exploration and production of oil andnatural gas properties, focused primarily in the East Texas Basin.

The Plan Objection Deadline and Voting Deadline are established asMarch 24, 2016.

Prior to the Disclosure Statement hearing, the Debtors amended thePlan outline to provide that holders of Class 6 - Subordinated PIKNotes Claims will be entitled to receive: (i) if Class 6 votes toaccept the Plan, its Pro Rata share of 12.5% of the New EquityInterests that are issued and outstanding as of the EffectiveDate;or (ii) if Class 6 does not vote to accept the Plan, its Pro Ratashare of 5% of the New Equity Interests that are issued andoutstanding as of the Effective Date.

"The change in outlook to stable reflects Moody's view that NPC'sleverage will remain well below 6.0 times while maintaining goodliquidity." stated Bill Fahy, Moody's Senior Credit Officer. "Theseimprovements are driven in part by the earnings benefit ofmaterially lower commodity costs that has helped to offset higherlabor costs and more recently a modest deceleration in negativecomparable sales trends at Pizza Hut and strong operating trends atWendy's which we expect to continue over the near term." statedFahy. For the LTM period ending Sept. 30, 2015, NPC's debt toEBITDA was about 5.7 times.

The B2 CFR reflects NPC's relatively high leverage and modestinterest coverage driven by weak operating trends to date at PizzaHut and cost inflation related to wages as well as commodities,which have since materially subsided. The rating also consideredNPC's limited product offering, concentrated day-part in lunch anddinner and limited geographic diversity. Supporting the rating areNPC's multiple brands, meaningful scale within the Pizza Hutfranchise system and good liquidity.

Ratings could be downgraded if a deterioration in operatingperformance resulted in debt/EBITDA above 6.0 times on a sustainedbasis. Any deterioration in liquidity, could also result in adowngrade.

The ratings could be upgraded in the event a sustained improvementin operating performance, driven by profitable same store sales andnew unit growth resulted in stronger debt protection metrics andliquidity. Specifically, an upgrade would require debt/EBITDAdeclining near 4.5 times and EBITA/ interest exceeding 2.0 times ona sustained basis.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was RestaurantIndustry published in September 2015.

NPC International, Inc. is the world's largest Pizza Hutfranchisee, operating 1,263 Pizza Hut restaurants and deliveryunits in 28 states and 143 Wendy's units in three states. Annualrevenues are approximately $1.2 billion. NPC is owned by OlympusPartners.

ODH's ratings are supported by the company's solid commercialrelationship with Petroleos Mexicanos SA (Pemex, IDR 'BBB+'); itsonly customer, and its solid contractual position, evidenced by itsrecent extension of the Centenario and Bicentenario contracts, thatcontributes to the company's relatively stable and predictable cashflow generation.

The ratings also reflect the company's moderately high leverage,partial structural subordination and decreasing but still existingcontract roll-over risk. Fitch forecasts leverage metrics to remainbetween 4.0x - 4.5x, consistent with the assigned rating over therating horizon.

The Stable Rating Outlook reflects the decreased re-contractingrisk during 2016 - 2017, given the company's contract extensionsfor Centenario and Bicentenario until 2017. This adds to thestability and predictability of the company's cashflow generationduring the current significant weak market environment for offshoredrillers.

Following the downward revision of Fitch's oil & gas priceassumptions, the agency expects recovery for the offshore rigindustry to take longer than previous expectations with dayratesand utilization rates improving by 2018.

SOLID RELATIONSHIP; STRONG OFFTAKER

ODH's ratings reflect the strong commercial relationship of thecompany and its shareholder, Grupo R, and Pemex. ODH currently ownsthree ultra-deepwater (UDW) sixth-generation dynamic positioningsemisubmersible drilling rigs, which are contracted with Pemex atday rates ranging between USD365,000/day and USD489,000/day.Additionally, ODH was able to obtain long-term contracts with Pemexfor two of its jackups, under a pressured global market forjackups. Fitch views this positively and as further evidence of thecompany's solid relationship with Pemex.

ROLL-OVER AND DAY RATES RISK

ODH is exposed to contract renewal risk given that the contractsfor the three UDW drilling rigs expire before the maturity of thenotes. The contracts for Centenario and Bicentenario have recentlybeen extended until December 2017 at a dayrate of USD365,000/day,providing more certainty to the company's cashflow generationduring 2016 - 2017 that may allow ODH to navigate the downcycle.Fitch has pushed back its recovery inflection point estimate into2H' 2018 with a risk for further inflection point revisions. Therating incorporates Fitch's expectation that Pemex will re-contractthese drilling rigs shortly before the contracts expire.

OIL PRICE PRESSURES

Offshore drillers continue to face depressed market conditions dueto lower demand and a significant oversupply of rigs. The severedecline in oil prices has compounded the effects of the offshorerig oversupply cycle resulting in continued global market dayratedeterioration. Fitch believes that medium-term demand will reboundand absorb the newer high-quality assets. Fitch believes that anuptick in demand could lag supportive oil & gas price levels(estimated at $65 - $70/barrel for deepwater) by at least six-12months. Moreover, Pemex may favor continuity and fosteringrelationships with its existing drilling providers under the rightconditions.

PARTIAL STRUCTURAL SUBORDINATION

ODH's senior secured notes are guaranteed by the unencumberedrestricted subsidiaries that own the Centenario and Bicentenariodrilling rigs. The notes are currently structurally subordinated toa project-finance bank loan of approximately USD320 million,related to the financing of La Muralla IV. This bank debt hascertain cash-sweep provisions restricting cash flow distributionsto ODH. The bank loan amortizes through 2018 and once it is repaid,La Muralla IV will become a co-guarantor for the notes.

MODERATELY HIGH LEVERAGE

Fitch expects consolidated leverage to range between 4.0x and 4.5x,with the exception of years when the company adds financial debt tofund acquisitions without reporting a full year of operationalrevenues for the new assets. During the LTM ended Sept. 30, 2015,ODH's consolidated leverage was 3.9x. As of Sept. 30, 2015, totaldebt was USD1.3 billion, slightly down from USD1.52 billion, as ofyear-end 2013, and LTM EBITDA, as of the end of June 2015, wasUSD331 million. Fitch expects leverage to sharply decline below3.0x once the five jackups have reported a full year ofoperations.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

Fitch's key assumptions within Fitch's rating cases for ODHinclude:

Fitch Base Case:

-- Brent oil price that trends up from $45/barrel in 2016 to a longer-term price of $65/barrel;

-- Current contracted backlog is forecast to remain intact with no renegotiations contemplated for both the ultra-deepwater rigs and jackups;

-- After expiration of the contracts for the semisubs, Centenario

and Bicentenario are re-contracted in 2018 at the $365 thousand, considering the negotiated floor within the contracts;

-- 2 Jackups start operations during the 1Q2016 at day rate of $130 thousand, the remaining 3 units start operations in 2016 at the same rate;

-- Increased capital expenditures of approximately $1 billion during 2016 due to the financing of the Jack Ups;

-- Regular maintenance capex of approximately $90 million during the next 5 years;

-- No dividend payments forecasted.

Fitch Stress Case makes the following key adjustments to the FitchBase Case:

-- Brent oil price that trends up from $35/barrel in 2016 to a longer-term price of $45/barrel;

-- Starting in 2017, renegotiations are considered and market day rates are assumed to be $200,000 for higher specification ultra-deepwater rigs and $90,000 for the jackups;

-- Rigs performance is assumed to deteriorate with declining uptime levels to 90% on average starting this year.

-- The company contracts all its drilling equipment with very limited to none out-clauses and with improved fixed day rates suggesting strengthening market conditions.

LIQUIDITY

ODH's liquidity position is supported by the company's stable andpredictable cash flow generation coupled with a lengthened debtmaturity profile. ODH's liquidity position is further supported byits cash on hand, which as of Sept. 30, 2015, was approximatelyUSD138.5 million. The company also maintains a one-year interestreserve account for the 2020 notes and La Muralla IV in an amountequal to USD106.2 million. This favourably compares with thecompany's short-term needs of USD80.8 million to repay short-termdebt. Manageable amortizations of approximately $100 - $160 millionper year are expected for the next four years which are expected tobe covered with cash on hand and FCF.

The downgrade reflects S&P's expectation that ODH will show weakerfinancial performance, given S&P's belief that day rates willremain at lower levels than those it previously expected. Dayrates for two of the company's oil rigs--Centenario andBicentenario— are at $365,000 and S&P expects them to remain atthe contractual minimum for the next 12 months due to the continuedlow oil prices (compared to an average of $530,000 in 2014). Theseday rates will result in weaker interest coverage ratios and aslower cash build-up for the notes' bullet payment. Under S&P'srevised base case scenario, the company's cash flow will only beable to cover around 50% of the $950 million principal payment duein 2020. As a consequence, the rating on the notes incorporatesrefinancing risk. As S&P expected, charter agreements withPetroleos Mexicanos (Pemex; BBB+/Stable/--), ODH's only client, nowhave a shorter term. Although this can result in a potentialrevision of day rates if oil prices rebound, it also leads to lesscash flow predictability and higher recontracting risk.

Under S&P's updated base-case assumptions, it expects ODH's annualrevenue and EBITDA to fall to $285 million and $218 million,respectively, in 2016 from $421 million and $360 million in 2014.S&P expects the company will accumulate cash flow by 2020 that willaccount for about 50% of the $950 million bullet payment and thatthe remainder will be refinanced. S&P projects funds fromoperations (FFO) to interest of 2.3x in 2016 and 2.5x in 2017 andFFO to debt of 11% and 16% in the same years. These ratios are nowin line with S&P's 'B+' rating and could worsen if the $365,000 dayrates persist beyond 2018 or if ODH fails to renew its contractsuntil its debt matures in 2020.

The 'B+' ratings also reflect ODH's somewhat uncertain quality ofcash flow, high concentration and correlation of assets, andability to service its financial obligations. This assessmentincorporates refinancing risk and reflects the company's risk ofrecontracting the charter agreements when they expire. The ratingalso reflects ODH's prudent financial management and its exposureto a highly competitive and cyclical industry. However, themitigating factor is the high likelihood that Pemex will recontractODH's vessels, given its plans to continue investing in oilexploration and production (E&P) activities in the Gulf of Mexico. In S&P's view, ODH enjoys adequate contractual foundations thanksto the three charter agreements with Pemex Exploracion y Produccion(PEP; Pemex's exploration and production arm). S&P's analysis alsoincorporates ODH's more than 50 years of experience in Mexico's oiland gas industry through its parent Grupo R (Not rated), its solidbusiness relationship with Pemex, and the strong collateralpackage, which benefits ODH's lenders.

S&P believes ODH has the ability to absorb low probability adverseevents in the next two years without incurring additional debt,thanks to its current cash balances and its manageable debtmaturity schedule. However, S&P also considers that due to marketconditions, ODH's access to capital markets could be restricted.ODH will continue to build up cash to cover its $950 million seniorsecured notes bullet payment in 2020.

The stable outlook reflects S&P's expectation that current dayrates of $365,000 for Centenario and Bicentario and $489,000 for LaMuralla IV, would allow the company to maintain stable andrelatively predictable cash flow generation and main creditmetrics, such as FFO to interest ratio of around 2.5x and FFO todebt in the 15% range in the next 12 months.

S&P could lower the rating on ODH if any of the platforms is unableto secure a contract after their respective maturity dates or ifday rates fall to levels that lead to FFO to interest expense ofless than 1.5x and FFO to debt of less than 12%. In addition, S&Pcould revise the ratings downward if any of the assets owned by ODHexperience an operational issue that negatively affects thecompany´s cash flow generation.

Although not likely in the short term, S&P could upgrade theratings if it perceives a significant improvement in day rates thattranslates in stronger coverage ratios, with FFO to interestcoverage above 2.7x and FFO to debt of more than 19%, and if S&Passess decreases in its exposure to refinancing risk.

The recovery rating of '3' on the senior secured bonds indicatesS&P's expectation for meaningful recovery (in the 70%-90% range) ina default scenario. S&P valued the company on a liquidated valuebasis, subject to the stresses incorporated in its simulateddefault scenario. S&P acknowledges that default modeling,valuation, and restructuring (whether as part of a formalbankruptcy proceeding or otherwise) are inherently dynamic andcomplex processes that don't lend themselves to precise or certainpredictions. S&P's recovery ratings are intended to provideeducated approximations of post-default recovery rates, rather thanexact forecasts.

The purpose of the OGIL 2016 Management Incentive Plan is tofurther align the interests of participants with those of theshareholders by providing incentive compensation opportunities tiedto the performance of the common stock and stapled securities andby promoting increased ownership of the common stock and/or stapledsecurities by such individuals.

Copies of the exhibits contained in this Plan Supplement may beobtained free of charge through the Web site of the Debtors'notice, claims, and solicitation agent at http://dm.epiq11.com/OGI

About Offshore Group

Offshore Group Investment Limited is an international offshoredrilling company operating a fleet of modern, high-specificationdrilling units around the world. Its principal business is tocontract their drilling units, related equipment, and work crewstodrill underwater oil and natural gas wells for major, national,andindependent oil and natural gas companies.

Offshore Group on Feb. 10, 2016, disclosed that it has successfullycompleted its prepackaged restructuring and recapitalization andemerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Debtors'prepackaged plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy judge Jan. 15,2016.

OFFSHORE GROUP: Prepackaged Plan Has Feb. 10 Effective Date-----------------------------------------------------------Offshore Group Investment Limited, et al., said in a filing withthe U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that theEffective Date of their Prepackaged Plan occurred on February 10,2016.

On the Effective Date, Offshore Group Investment Limited changedits name to Vantage Drilling International. The ReorganizedDebtors have filed a Certification of Counsel Regarding OrderAuthorizing Change to Case Caption as a Result of Name Change tochange the consolidated caption of these cases from "In re OffshoreGroup Investment Limited, et al." to "In re Vantage DrillingInternational (f/k/a Offshore Group Investment Limited), et al."

The Prepackaged Plan and the provisions thereof are binding on theDebtors, the Reorganized Debtors, any holder of a Claim against, orInterest in, the Debtors and such holder's respective successorsand assigns, whether or not the Claim or Interest of such holder isimpaired under the Prepackaged Plan and whether or not such holderor entity voted to accept the Prepackaged Plan.

The Prepackaged Plan is supported by 98.88% of the Debtors' securedterm loan and noteholders and 100% of the Debtors' securedrevolving lenders. These are the only creditors entitled to vote onthe Prepackaged Plan. Unsecured claims are unimpaired.

The Debtors' restructuring will leave the Debtors' business intactunder OGIL and will substantially de-lever it. The Debtors'balance sheet liabilities will be reduced from greater than $2.6billion in secured debt to $969 million in secured debt or $219million in secured debt once the New Secured Convertible PIK Notesare converted into New Common Shares.

Under the terms of the Prepackaged Plan, holders of AllowedAdministrative Expense Claims, Fee Claims, and Priority Tax Claimsshall be paid in full in cash. Holders of Allowed Claims in Class1 (Priority Non-Tax Claims), Class 2 (Other Secured Claims), Class5 (General Unsecured Claims), and Class 6 (Intercompany Claims),will be left unimpaired. Holders of Allowed Claims in Class 7(Subordinated Claims) and holders of Interests in Class 9(Intercompany Interests) will receive no distribution and will beImpaired.

A copy of the Amended Prepackaged Plan filed by the Debtors on Jan.11, 2016, is available for free at:

Offshore Group Investment Limited is an international offshoredrilling company operating a fleet of modern, high-specificationdrilling units around the world. Its principal business is tocontract their drilling units, related equipment, and work crews todrill underwater oil and natural gas wells for major, national, andindependent oil and natural gas companies.

OFFSHORE GROUP: Su & F3 Capital Appeal Plan Confirmation Order--------------------------------------------------------------Hsin Chi Su and F3 Capital have taken an appeal from the ruling ofthe United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delawareconfirming Offshore Group Investment Limited, et al.'s JointPrepackaged Plan. They ask the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Delaware to determine whether the Bankruptcy Courterred in granting confirmation of the Debtors' Plan.

Mr. Su and F3 Capital also appeal from a ruling made by thebankruptcy judge on Jan. 14, 2016, denying them standing to appearin the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases.

Hsin Chi Su a/k/a Nobu Su ("Nobu Su") was the lone remainingobjector to the Debtors' Plan. As reported in the TCR, Mr. Su andF3 Capital said that the Debtors attempt to favor currentmanagement and favored creditors to the detriment of parties likeMr. Su, F3 Capital and the public shareholders and creditors ofVantage Drilling Company by taking actions to divest VantageDrilling of assets without complying with Cayman Law. The Debtorssuggest that unsecured creditors are unimpaired. However, they areimpaired given there is a provision to deny post-petition interest,Mr. Su and F3 Capital argued. Furthermore, they noted that theuniverse of unsecured creditors is unknown. The Debtor's Plan andDisclosure Statement, they point out, also does not deal with theissue of potential maritime claims which would prime other claimsand could arise after confirmation.

The Debtors respond that Mr. Su has no legal rights against anyDebtor in the Chapter 11 cases. Mr. Su is the shareholder of anentity (F3 Capital) that holds a disputed, unliquidated claimagainst and equity interest in Vantage Drilling Company ("VantageParent"), the nondebtor parent of OGIL.

According to the Debtors, Mr. Su's rights against Vantage Parentwill be addressed in the Cayman Islands' proceeding, along with the$1.5 billion deficiency claim of the Debtors' secured term loanlenders and noteholders that also exists in that proceeding.

The Debtors also refute Mr. Su's contentions that shareholders aredeprived of significant value in the Debtors' estates. They averthat Vantage Parent is "hopelessly out of the money."

Offshore Group Investment Limited is an international offshoredrilling company operating a fleet of modern, high-specificationdrilling units around the world. Its principal business is tocontract their drilling units, related equipment, and work crewstodrill underwater oil and natural gas wells for major, national,andindependent oil and natural gas companies.

Offshore Group on Feb. 10, 2016, disclosed that it has successfullycompleted its prepackaged restructuring and recapitalization andemerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Debtors'prepackaged plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy judge Jan. 15,2016.

OKKO HOMES: Seeking Offer for Assets; March 14 Bid Deadline Set---------------------------------------------------------------Hardie & Kelly Inc., in its capacity as court-appointed receiver ofOkko Homes Inc. and Okko Communities, is accepting offers forOkko's right, title and interest in Sullivan Landing, inclusive oftwo duplex show homes, one of which has been furnished.

Okko substantially completed a 55 lot serviced residentialdevelopment located in the City of Kimberley, British Columbiaknown local as Sullivan Landing.

The deadline for offer is 2:00 p.m. MST on March 14, 2016. Anysale will be subject to approval by the Court of the Queen's Benchof Alberta and the Supreme Court of British Columbia and thereceiver reserves the right to enter into any sale prior to thedeadline and is not obligated to accept the highest, or any offer.

To obtain further information and to arrange for a viewing okOkko's assets, please contact Joanne Kitt of RE/MAX CaldwellAgencies at 877 427-2221 or email at joanne@caldwellagencies.com.

OUTER HARBOR: U.S. Trustee to Hold 341 Meeting on March 9---------------------------------------------------------Andrew Vara, acting U.S. trustee for Region 3, has requested theClerk of Bankruptcy Court to schedule a meeting of creditors ofOuter Harbor Terminal LLC on March 9, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

The court overseeing the bankruptcy case of a company schedules themeeting of creditors usually about 30 days after the bankruptcypetition is filed. The meeting is called the "341 meeting" afterthe section of the Bankruptcy Code that requires it.

A representative of the company is required to appear at themeeting and answer questions under oath. The meeting is presidedover by the U.S. trustee, the Justice Department's bankruptcywatchdog.

The Debtor estimated assets and debts at $100 million to $500million. The petition was signed by Heather Stack, chief financialofficer.

OUTER HARBOR: US Trustee Unable to Form Creditors' Committee------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Vara, acting U.S. trustee for Region 3, said he wasn't ableto form a committee of unsecured creditors in Outer Harbor TerminalLLC's Chapter 11 case due to "insufficient response" fromcreditors.

Official creditors' committees have the right to employ legal andaccounting professionals and financial advisors, at a debtor'sexpense. They may investigate the debtor's business and financialaffairs. Importantly, official committees serve as fiduciaries tothe general population of creditors they represent.

The Ba1 ratings reflect the hybrid bond security that includes thebroader city-wide transient guest tax (TGT) revenues that areavailable on a rolling basis to help pay debt service if net hoteloperating revenues are insufficient. The pledged TGT revenuesimprove the project's cash flow predictability as they provideneeded support to offset volatile net hotel operating revenues thatare highly sensitive to economic downturns. The project's use ofTGT revenues has occurred since 2008 and Moody's expects this tocontinue until the debt is repaid given debt service costs annuallyrise by an average of 2.76% through the 2031 maturity date.

The ratings also reflect the hotel's relatively sound marketposition as one of only a few higher-end hotels in the region andits favorable location adjacent to the Overland Park conventioncenter that drives more predictable group bookings that comprised48% of room nights and 44% of revenue in 2015. The hotel'slocation near a concentration of many regional office parks andbusiness including, Sprint Corporation's (corporate family rating,B3 negative) headquarters, also supports transient business demandfor the facility.

The rating incorporates the hotel's improving operating performancewith annually rising RevPAR since 2010 driven by higher averagedaily room rates in recent years as occupancy rates are nearprerecession 2007 peak levels. The hotel operator has maintainedthe facility in good condition and the city remains committed tothe facility and continues to promote its use to new businessesthat locate in the city. The ratings incorporate the need for aroom renovation plan over the next few years that will have unknownoperating impacts and will take a few years to completeincrementally so the facility can remain open. The renovations arelikely to be funded from the current Furniture, Fixtures, andEquipment (FFE) fund balances and from annual required depositsinto the FFE fund.

The first and second tier bonds are both rated Ba1. The secondtier bonds benefit from a larger 4.5% share of the city-widepledged hotel tax revenues while the first tier bonds only receivea 1.5% share. On balance, the higher amount of pledged hotel taxrevenues for the second tier bonds balances the second tier'ssubordinate claim on net hotel operating revenues.

Rating Outlook

The stable outlook reflects Moody's expectation that there will begradual improvements to both the net operating revenues of thehotel and the TGT revenues in line with rising operating and debtservice costs.

A decline in demand that reduces margins and requires more TGTrevenues on a sustained basis.

Legal Security

The revenue bonds are special, limited obligations of thecorporation, secured by the hotel's net operating revenues andmonies held by the trustee. There is no cross default between theFirst and Second tier liens. The rate covenant requires netrevenues from hotel operations alone, not including TGT revenues,to be at least 1.05 times the total debt service required on alloutstanding bonds. In the event the corporation fails to meet thecovenant, the corporation must engage a hotel consultant torecommend how to improve operations in order generate more revenuesto meet future debt service requirements. The corporation has notmeet this rate covenant since 2008, but the corporation is not onlyin technical default as it has complied with all required actionsand has continued to make all payments on time and in full.

The First tier bonds' additional bonds test requires debt servicecoverage on the First tier bonds to be at least 2.25 times and debtservice coverage on all bonds to be at least 1.10 for the mostrecent calendar year and on a forward-looking basis through thefinal interest payment. The Second tier bonds' additional bondstest requires a total debt service coverage ratio of at least 1.10times for the most recent calendar year and on a forward-lookingbasis through the final interest payment, along with a TGT coverageratio of debt service by at least 1.00 times in the most recentyear and on a forward-looking basis through the final interestpayment.

The bonds are further secured by a pledge on city-wide TransientGuest Tax (TGT) revenue. The city is obligated, under certainconditions, to make available its TGT revenue to help pay the debtservice on the bonds according to the terms of a Debt ServiceSupport Agreement. The TGT is a 6% tax levied on gross hotel,motel, or tourist accommodation revenues earned within the city,which has about 5,285 available rooms. The tax is collected by thestate, and returned to the city (less a 2% administration fee) atleast quarterly.

The senior tier bonds receive 1.5% of the 6% TGT collections andthe second tier bonds receive the remaining 4.5%. The relativelygreater amount pledged to the second tier bonds accounts for thesecond tier's rating at the same level as the senior lien debt,despite the senior-subordinate relationship with respect to hotelnet operating cash flows. Failure by the city to appropriate TGTrevenues is an event of default under the lease between thecorporation and the city and could result in a loss of rentalpayments to the city.

The city may be released of its support obligations under theagreement if the corporation achieves debt service coverage ratiosfor three consecutive years of 2.75 times on the first tier and2.25 times on the second tier. Additionally, the corporation mustdemonstrate that the Corporation Reserve Fund (the bottom fund inthe corporation's flow of funds) contains an amount equal tomaximum annual debt service on both the first and second tierbonds. If subsequent to the release of the city of its supportobligations the corporation's debt service coverage falls below2.25 times and 1.75 times on the first and second tier bonds,respectively, the agreement must be reinstated.

Obligor Profile

Overland Park Development Corporation is a not-for-profitcorporation formed for the purpose of facilitating financing,construction, and ownership of the hotel. The 412-room hotelopened in December 2002 and is connected to the Overland ParkConvention Center in Overland Park, Kansas, a Aaa rated suburb ofKansas City. The hotel is owned by the corporation, aninstrumentality of the city. The corporation's sole purpose is tofinance, build, and operate the hotel which is managed by theSheraton Operating Corporation under a management agreement thatwill extend through 2022. The corporation has entered into a60-year lease with the city for use of the land and makes annuallease payments to the city, which are subordinate to debt service.The city cannot terminate the lease for nonpayment of annual rent.

PARAGON OFFSHORE: Files for Chapter 11 With Plan------------------------------------------------Paragon Offshore plc and 25 of its subsidiaries filed with the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware separate Chapter 11bankruptcy petitions on Feb. 14, 2016, with an accompanying jointChapter 11 plan of reorganization.

The Debtors reported total assets of $2.47 billion and total debtsof $2.96 billion as of Sept. 30, 2015. The financial restructuringis expected to reduce Paragon's debt by more than $1 billion andallow existing equity holders to retain 65% equity in thereorganized Debtors. The consensual restructuring is also intendedto eliminate the potential risk of costly multi-party litigation.

Certain creditors holding approximately 95.62% of the Debtors'Revolving Credit Agreement Claims and approximately 76.88% of theDebtors' Senior Notes Claims entered into a plan support agreement. Under the terms of the Plan Support Agreement, the

Consenting Creditors agreed to a deleveraging transaction thatwould restructure the existing debt obligations of the Debtors inchapter 11 through the Plan.

The rights of holders of General Unsecured Claims will be leftunaltered by the Plan, and the Debtors will continue to pay ordispute each General Unsecured Claim in the ordinary course ofbusiness.

Paragon Offshore plc also entered into a binding term sheet withNoble Corporation plc, the Debtors' former parent, with respect toa definitive settlement agreement, under which Noble will providedirect bonding to satisfy requirements necessary to challengecertain tax assessments in Mexico relating to the Debtors'business. In connection with Paragon's spin-off on Aug. 1, 2014,Paragon gave Noble promissory notes totaling approximately $1.7billion. As part of the Spin-Off, Paragon borrowed $650 millionunder the Secured Term Loan and issued approximately $1.03 billionunder the Senior Notes Indenture. Proceeds of these borrowingswere transferred to Noble in satisfaction of the promissory notes.

James A. Mesterharm, managing director of AlixPartners, LLP, theDebtors' restructuring advisor, said that due to the amount of debtParagon incurred in connection with the Spin-Off and the nature ofthe assets acquired, Paragon could not absorb the ongoing andprecipitous decline in oil and gas prices and the correspondingdecline in demand for their services.

"Although Paragon does not face any maturities on material secureddebt until 2019, the severity and duration of the market downturnhas increased the risk that existing customer contracts, some ofwhich are due to expire in the near term, will not be renewed orwill be renewed at materially reduced prices," Mr. Mesterharmmaintained.

The Debtors are also dealing with the termination of longer-termcontracts, including contracts with Pemex and Petrobras.

Concurrently with the filing of the petitions, the Debtors filedfirst day motion seeking authority to, among other things, useexisting cash management system, prohibit utility providers fromdiscontinuing services, pay employee compensation, pay generalunsecured creditors that provide goods or services (many of whichare located in jurisdictions outside the United States), and usecash collateral. These motions will ensure that the company'svendors, as well as employees, will continue to be paid. Paragonexpects to maintain sufficient liquidity throughout therestructuring process to maintain its business operations.

Randall D. Stilley, President and Chief Executive Officer ofParagon, said, "Paragon has acted proactively to strengthen thecompany's balance sheet in this challenging environment. We lookforward to moving as quickly as possible through this process whilemaintaining our focus on delivering safe, reliable, and efficientoperations as the industry's High-Quality, Low-Cost drillingcontractor. We are confident that Paragon will emerge as an evenstronger company, better positioned for long-term growth andsuccess."

About Paragon Offshore

Paragon Offshore plc -- http://www.paragonoffshore.com/-- is a global provider of offshore drilling rigs. Paragon's operatedfleet includes 34 jackups, including two high specification heavyduty/harsh environment jackups, and six floaters (four drillshipsand two semisubmersibles). Paragon's primary business iscontracting its rigs, related equipment and work crews to conductoil and gas drilling and workover operations for its explorationand production customers on a dayrate basis around the world.Paragon's principal executive offices are located in Houston,Texas. Paragon is a public limited company registered in Englandand Wales and its ordinary shares have been trading on theover-the-counter markets under the trading symbol "PGNPF" sinceDecember 18, 2015.

Holders of approximately 95.62% in outstanding principal amount ofthe revolving credit agreement claims entitled to vote on the Plan(the "Consenting Revolver Lenders") and holders of 76.88% inoutstanding principal amount of the senior notes claims entitled tovote on the Plan have already agreed to vote in favor of the Plan.

The restructuring will leave the Debtors' business intact underParagon Offshore plc and substantially de-lever it, providing forthe reduction of $1.1 billion of the Debtors' existing debt and $60million of the Debtors' annual cash interest expense upon thecompletion of the Restructuring. This deleveraging will enhancethe Debtors' long-term growth prospects and competitive positionand allow the Debtors to emerge from their chapter 11 cases (the"Chapter 11 cases") as reorganized entities better positioned towithstand a depressed market for offshore contract drilling.

In accordance with the Plan Support Agreement, the Debtors areobligated to proceed with the implementation of the Plan throughthe Chapter 11 Cases. Among the milestones contained in the PlanSupport Agreement are the requirement that the Bankruptcy Courtenter the order approving the Disclosure Statement and thesolicitation procedures within 75 days after the Petition Date,enter an order confirming the Plan within 185 days after thePetition Date, and that the Plan must be consummated no later than230 days after the Petition Date. Achieving the various milestonesunder the Plan Support Agreement is crucial to reorganizing theDebtors successfully.

Prepetition Capital Structure

The Debtors' significant prepetition indebtedness includes securedfinancing obligations in the amount of approximately $1,440,650,651and unsecured financing obligations in the amount of approximately$983,582,000.

Paragon Offshore plc and Paragon International Finance Company areborrowers and each of the other Debtors are guarantors under aSenior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17,2014, with the lenders and issuing banks party thereto from time totime (the "Secured Revolver Lenders"), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,as administrative agent (the "Secured Revolver Agent"). TheSecured Revolving Credit Agreement provides for revolving creditcommitments, including letter of credit commitments and swinglinecommitments, in an aggregate principal amount of $800 million. TheSecured Revolving Credit Agreement matures in July 2019. As of thePetition Date, the aggregate principal amount outstanding under theSecured Revolving Credit Agreement is approximately $708.5 millionin unpaid principal, plus any applicable interest, fees, and otherexpenses, in addition to approximately $87.4 million of letters ofcredit.

Debtor Paragon Offshore Finance Company, as borrower, and ParagonParent, along with each of the other Debtors, as guarantors, areparties to that certain Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement, datedas of July 18, 2014, with the lenders party thereto (the "SecuredTerm Loan Lenders"), and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., asadministrative agent (the "Secured Term Loan Agent"). The SecuredTerm Loan Agreement provides for a term loan in an aggregateprincipal amount of up to $645 million (the "Secured Term Loan").The Secured Term Loan Agreement matures in July 2021.12. As of the Petition Date, the aggregate principal amountoutstanding under the Secured Term Loan Agreement is approximately$642 million in unpaid principal, plus any applicable interest,fees, and other expenses.

Paragon Offshore plc is also an issuer under an Indenture, dated asof July 18, 2014, with each of the other Debtors as namedguarantors therein, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, asindenture trustee (as amended, modified, or supplemented fromtime to time, the "Senior Notes Indenture"), pursuant to whichParagon Parent issued 6.75% Senior Notes due 2022 in the aggregateprincipal amount of $500,000,000 (the "6.75% Senior Notes") and7.25% Senior Notes due 2024 in the aggregate principal amount of$580,000,000 (the "7.25% Senior Notes"). As of the Petition Date,the aggregate amount outstanding under the 6.75% Senior Notes isapproximately $456.5 million, plus any applicable interest, fees,and other expenses, and the aggregate amount outstanding under the7.25% Senior Notes is approximately $527 million, plus anyapplicable interest, fees, and other expenses.

On Aug. 1, 2014, Noble Corporation plc ("Noble") completed aspin-off of Paragon by: (i) transferring to Paragon Parent theassets and liabilities constituting most of Noble's standardspecification drilling business and (ii) making a pro ratadistribution to Noble's shareholders of all of Paragon Parent'sissued and outstanding ordinary shares (the "Spin-Off"). Inconnection with the Spin-Off, Paragon gave Noble promissory notestotaling approximately $1.7 billion. As part of the Spin-Off,Paragon borrowed $650 million under the Secured Term Loan andissued approximately $1.03 billion under the Senior NotesIndenture. Proceeds of these borrowings were transferred to Noblein satisfaction of the promissory notes. The rigs transferred toParagon through the Spin-Off had an average age of 35 years.

The Debtors estimate that, as of the Petition Date, they owe atotal of approximately $41.5 million on account of undisputed tradeclaims.

Terms of the Plan

Under the Plan, holders of priority non-tax claims in Class 1 andOther Secured Claims in Class 2 are unimpaired. Recovery is 100%.

Class 3, the Revolving Credit Agreement Claims, will be Allowed asSecured Claims with respect to funded loans and the face amount ofundrawn letters of credit in an aggregate principal amount of notless than $795,600,000 plus any unpaid accrued interest, letter ofcredit fees, other fees, and unpaid reasonable fees and expenses asof the Effective Date. On the Effective Date, each holder of anAllowed Revolving Credit Agreement Claim will receive, in fullsatisfaction of and in exchange for such Allowed Secured Claim, itsPro Rata share of: (i) any accrued and unpaid interest from thePetition Date through the Effective Date as set forth in theAdequate Protection Order to the extent not previously paidpursuant to the Adequate Protection Order; (ii) $165,000,000 inCash and a corresponding permanent commitment reduction; and (iii)the remaining outstanding loans under the Revolving CreditAgreement converted to a term loan. Recovery is 100%.

The legal, equitable, and contractual rights of Class 4, theholders of Allowed Secured Term Loan Claims, are unaltered by thePlan and such claims will be allowed in an amount of $644,950,651.Recovery is 100%.

The Senior Notes Claims will be allowed in the amount of$1,020,555,682. On the Effective Date, or as soon as practicablethereafter, each holder in Class 5, the Allowed Senior NotesClaims, will receive, in full satisfaction of and in exchange forits Allowed Claim, its Pro Rata share of: (i) that number of ParentOrdinary Shares which will in the aggregate comprise 35% of thetotal outstanding ordinary shares of Reorganized Paragon as of theEffective Date without regard to the Management Incentive PlanSecurities; (ii) the right to receive the 2016 Deferred CashPayment and the 2017 Deferred Cash Payment in accordance with theterms of the Plan; and (iii) $345,000,000 in Cash. Recovery is57.1% to 72.6%.

The rights of holders of General Unsecured Claims (Class 6) will beleft unaltered by the Plan, and the Debtors will continue to pay ordispute each General Unsecured Claim in the ordinary course ofbusiness.

On the Effective Date, the holders of Parent Interests (Class 8)will retain their Parent Interests, subject to dilution on accountof the Parent Ordinary Shares to be issued in accordance with thePlan. After the issuance of the Parent Ordinary Shares, the ParentInterests will comprise in the aggregate 65% of the totaloutstanding ordinary shares of Reorganized Paragon without regardto the Management Incentive Plan Securities. Recovery is 100%.

Holders of Claims and Interests in Classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9are conclusively deemed to have accepted the Plan pursuant toSection 1126(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. Only holders of AllowedClaims in Classes 3 and 5 are entitled to vote to accept or rejectthe Plan.

Intercompany Interests held by Paragon Parent or a direct orindirect subsidiary of Paragon Parent (Class 9) will be unaffectedby the Plan and continue in place following the Effective Date.

* * *

Copies of the affidavits in support of the Ch. 11 petitions and thefirst day motions are available for free at:

Paragon Offshore plc -- http://www.paragonoffshore.com/-- is a global provider of offshore drilling rigs. Paragon's operatedfleet includes 34 jackups, including two high specification heavyduty/harsh environment jackups, and six floaters (four drillshipsand two semisubmersibles). Paragon's primary business iscontracting its rigs, related equipment and work crews to conductoil and gas drilling and workover operations for its explorationand production customers on a dayrate basis around the world.Paragon's principal executive offices are located in Houston,Texas. Paragon is a public limited company registered in Englandand Wales and its ordinary shares have been trading on theover-the-counter markets under the trading symbol "PGNPF" sinceDecember 18, 2015.

At the same time, S&P revised its recovery rating on the company'sunsecured debt to '4' from '6', indicating S&P's expectation ofaverage recovery (30% to 50%, lower end of the range). Therecovery rating on the company's term loan remains '2', indicatingS&P's expectation of substantial recovery (70%-90%, lower end ofthe range).

The 'D' ratings reflect Paragon's announcement that it will filefor Chapter 11 under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where it willimplement a negotiated settlement with bondholders and lenders.

PARAGON OFFSHORE: Seeking Joint Administration of Cases-------------------------------------------------------Paragon Offshore Plc and 25 of its affiliates ask the BankruptcyCourt to enter an order directing the consolidation of theirChapter 11 cases for procedural purposes only.

The Debtors anticipate that there are more than 10,000 creditorsand other parties-in-interest that are involved in their cases.They maintained that joint administration will allow for theefficient and convenient administration of their interrelatedChapter 11 cases.

"Joint administration of these cases will save the Debtors andtheir estates substantial time and expense because it will removethe need to prepare, replicate, file, and serve duplicativenotices, applications, and orders," said Mark D. Collins, Esq., atRichards, Layton & Finger, P.A., counsel for the Debtors. "Further, joint administration will relieve the Court of enteringduplicative orders and maintaining duplicative files and dockets,"he added.

About Paragon Offshore

Paragon Offshore plc -- http://www.paragonoffshore.com/-- is a global provider of offshore drilling rigs. Paragon's operatedfleet includes 34 jackups, including two high specification heavyduty/harsh environment jackups, and six floaters (four drillshipsand two semisubmersibles). Paragon's primary business iscontracting its rigs, related equipment and work crews to conductoil and gas drilling and workover operations for its explorationand production customers on a dayrate basis around the world.Paragon's principal executive offices are located in Houston,Texas. Paragon is a public limited company registered in Englandand Wales and its ordinary shares have been trading on theover-the-counter markets under the trading symbol "PGNPF" sinceDecember 18, 2015.

PARAGON OFFSHORE: Targeting June 10 Confirmation of Plan--------------------------------------------------------Paragon Offshore plc, et al., have sought bankruptcy protection inthe United States with a proposed reorganization plan that willleave the Debtors' business intact and substantially de-lever it,providing for the reduction of $1.1 billion of the Debtors'existing debt and $60 million of the Debtors' annual cash interestexpense upon the completion of the restructuring.

The Debtors have filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Delaware a motion seeking approval of (i) theDisclosure Statement explaining the Chapter 11 Plan, and the (ii)proposed solicitation procedures. The Debtors intend to seekconfirmation of the Plan based on this timeline:

Paragon negotiated terms of its restructuring with keyconstituencies prepetition. On Feb. 12, 2016, Paragon Offshoreentered into a plan support agreement with respect to the terms ofa chapter 11 plan of reorganization with holders representing anaggregate of 77% of the outstanding $457 million of the Company's6.75% senior unsecured notes maturing July 2022 and the outstanding$527 million of the Company's 7.25% senior unsecured notes maturingAugust 2024 (together, the “Noteholders”) together with lendersrepresenting an aggregate of 95.62% of the outstanding debt(including letters of credit) under the Company's Senior SecuredRevolving Credit Agreement (the “Revolving Credit Agreement”).

Only holders of the Revolving Credit Agreement Claims (Class 3);and holders of the Senior Notes Claims (Class 5) are entitled tovote on the Plan. Holders of Class 3 claims are slated to have a100% recovery although they are still impaired under the Plan. Holders of Senior Notes Claims are slated to have a 57.1% to 72.6%recovery. Other classes of claims, including general unsecuredclaims, are unimpaired and will recover 100 cents on the dollarunder the Plan.

Paragon Offshore plc -- http://www.paragonoffshore.com/-- is a global provider of offshore drilling rigs. Paragon's operatedfleet includes 34 jackups, including two high specification heavyduty/harsh environment jackups, and six floaters (four drillshipsand two semisubmersibles). Paragon's primary business iscontracting its rigs, related equipment and work crews to conductoil and gas drilling and workover operations for its explorationand production customers on a dayrate basis around the world.Paragon's principal executive offices are located in Houston,Texas. Paragon is a public limited company registered in Englandand Wales and its ordinary shares have been trading on theover-the-counter markets under the trading symbol "PGNPF" sinceDecember 18, 2015.

PARAGON OFFSHORE: Wants to Use Secured Parties' Cash Collateral---------------------------------------------------------------Paragon Offshore plc and its affiliated debtors request authorityfrom the Bankruptcy Court to use cash collateral of JPMorgan ChaseBank, N.A. and Cortland Capital Market Services LLC, to fund theirpayments to vendors and employees and to satisfy the other ordinarycosts of operation, including rent, taxes, and insurance.

JPMorgan serves as the administrative agent for the revolverlenders and collateral agent for the revolver lenders and term loanlenders. Cortland Capital Market Services L.L.C. acts as theproposed successor administrative agent for the term loan lenders.

To protect the Prepetition Secured Parties to the extent of anyaggregate diminution in value of the Prepetition Collateralresulting from the use of Cash Collateral, the Debtors propose toprovide various forms of adequate protection. The proposedadequate protection includes a first priority lien on, and securityinterest in "Unencumbered Property," which includes approximately$332 million in a Goldman Sachs Bank Account owned by ParagonOffshore Group plc.

"Absent authority to use Cash Collateral, even for a limited periodof time, the continued operation of the Debtors' business wouldsuffer, causing immediate and irreparable harm to the Debtors,their respective estates, and their creditors," said Mark D.Collins, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., counsel for theDebtors.

About Paragon Offshore

Paragon Offshore plc -- http://www.paragonoffshore.com/-- is a global provider of offshore drilling rigs. Paragon's operatedfleet includes 34 jackups, including two high specification heavyduty/harsh environment jackups, and six floaters (four drillshipsand two semisubmersibles). Paragon's primary business iscontracting its rigs, related equipment and work crews to conductoil and gas drilling and workover operations for its explorationand production customers on a dayrate basis around the world.Paragon's principal executive offices are located in Houston,Texas. Paragon is a public limited company registered in Englandand Wales and its ordinary shares have been trading on theover-the-counter markets under the trading symbol "PGNPF" sinceDecember 18, 2015.

An Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit arose from thedefendants' alleged failure to pay certain funds withheld frompaychecks into required trust funds. Defendant Paramount Scaffold,Inc., is now a defunct entity and had sold all assets to defendantCalifornia Access Scaffold, Inc.

The defendants sought summary judgment on two bases: (1) that theplaintiffs' failure to object to the bankruptcy sale of Paramount'sassets estops the plaintiffs from bringing claims against defendantCalifornia Access now; and (2) that California Access is not acontinuation or alter ego of Paramount.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion and cross-moved for summaryjudgment, arguing that neither the bankruptcy sale nor theirfailure to object to the sale precludes their claims, and thatCalifornia Access is merely the continuation of Paramount and istherefore liable for their claims.

Judge Martinez agreed with the plaintiffs that California Access isthe successor to Paramount, considering that the management ofCalifornia Access remains largely the same as it was at Paramount. The judge also found that California Access now uses Paramount'sCarson, California property as its corporate office and that thereappears to be a significant crossover in the services formerlyoffered by Paramount and now offered by California Access. JudgeMartinez further found no objection by California Access that ithad pre-sale knowledge of the plaintiffs' ERISA claims.

A full-text copy of the Judge Martinez's February 1, 2016 order isavailable at http://is.gd/nlATDYfrom Leagle.com.

PAYLESS INC: Moody's Lowers CFR to B3, Outlook Altered to Negative------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service downgraded Payless Inc.'s CorporateFamily Rating to B3 from B2, and Probability of Default Rating toB3-PD from B2-PD. The company's $520 million 1st lien term loandue 2021 and $145 million 2nd lien term loan due 2022 were alsodowngraded to B2 and Caa1, respectively. The rating outlook isnegative.

The downgrades reflect weaker than anticipated operatingperformance and Moody's expectation that modest improvements to thecompany's operating performance over the next 12-24 months will beinsufficient to return credit metrics back in line with the B2rating category. Moody's projects free cash flow will be negativeand EBIT/Interest coverage will remain weak at less than 1 time inthe fiscal year ended January 2017 (fiscal 2016). Over the ninemonth period ending Oct. 31, 2015, revenue has remained relativelyflat compared to the same period in fiscal 2014, but worseninggross margins and elevated borrowings on the company's unrated $300million Asset Based Revolving Credit Facility have driven Moody'sadjusted interest coverage (EBIT/Interest) below 1 time,debt-to-EBITDA leverage to the high 5 times range (incorporatingMoody's standard adjustments), and funded-debt-to-EBITDA leveragecloser to the low 8 times range. Moody's anticipates that the rolloff of some one-time items such as the west coast port slowdown inearly 2015 will support improvements to operating performance infiscal 2016. However, many factors negatively impacting operatingperformance, such as foreign exchange and declining mall traffictrends, will constrain meaningful improvement.

The negative outlook reflects Payless' weak liquidity and thininterest coverage. Moody's expects the company will be challengedto restore positive free cash flow over the next 12-24 months andanticipates interest coverage will improve only modestly to around1 time.

Moody's took these rating actions:

Issuer: Payless Inc.

Corporate Family Rating, Downgraded to B3 from B2

Probability of Default Rating, Downgraded to B3-PD from B2-PD

$520 million Sr. Secured 1st Lien Term Loan due 2021, Downgraded

to B2 (LGD-3) from B1 (LGD-3)

$145 million Sr. Secured 2nd Lien Term Loan due 2022, Downgraded

to Caa1 (LGD-4) from B3( LGD-4)

Outlook is Negative

RATINGS RATIONALE

Payless' B3 CFR reflects the company's high leverage, weak interestcoverage and negative free cash flow resulting from weaker thananticipated operating performance combined with higher thananticipated borrowings on the company's revolving credit facility. Over the LTM period Moody's lease adjusted leverage has risen abouta half turn, leverage for funded debt rose by over 2 turns, andinterest coverage (EBIT/Interest) has fallen below 1 time. Alsoconstraining the rating is the company's history ofhighly-aggressive financial policies and weak liquidity. Factorssupporting the rating include the company's meaningfulinternational presence and its solid brand equity and competitiveposition. Payless benefits from the value-orientation of the brandand its under-$30 price point which Moody's believes helpedminimize some of the impact from the most recent downturn. However,Payless' core customer remains under economic pressure, whichconstrains meaningful growth.

Payless' liquidity is weak, driven by Moody's expectation fornegative free cash flow (CFO -- Capex) over the next 12-18 monthscombined with an already elevated estimated level of borrowings onthe company's $300 million ABL revolving credit facility expiringin 2019. While Moody's anticipates some seasonal repayments andborrowings on the revolver to support working capital needs, thecompany will be challenged to meaningfully reduce outstandingborrowings from current levels. Further constraining availabilitywill be the springing Fixed Charge Coverage test, which istriggered when availability is less than the greater of $20 millionor 10% of the borrowing base. Moody's believes there is potentialthat Payless could trigger the covenant over the next 12-18 months,and projects the company would not comply with the covenant if itwere tested. However, Payless may have the ability to pull back onsome growth capex if it were in danger of triggering the test. The$520 million first lien term loan due 2021 and $145 million secondlien term loan due 2022 do not contain any financial maintenancecovenants. Supporting liquidity is approximately $55 million ofcash on the balance sheet as of Oct. 31, 2015, and over $50 millionof availability on the revolver according to Moody's estimate.

The liquidity analysis is based on Moody's assumptions andestimates. However, there is some uncertainty about the company'sliquidity given the absence of information available to Moody'ssuch as the ABL borrowing base, availability, and the current fixedcharge coverage calculation. In addition, working capitalfluctuations could meaningfully impact free cash flow and the levelof revolver borrowings, particularly as the company continues toright size its inventory, which was impacted by the port strike andan intentional build-up of inventory in 2015.

Ratings could be upgraded if the company is able to reverse recentoperating trends resulting in improved gross and EBITDA marginscombined with consistent same store sales growth. Interestcoverage (EBIT/interest expense) sustained above 1.2 times and animproved liquidity profile with meaningful repayments on therevolving credit facility could also lead to an upgrade. Given thecompany's history of shareholder friendly transactions, an upgradewould also require the expectation that the company will exerciseprudent financial policies.

Ratings could be downgraded if operating performance continues toweaken resulting in interest coverage (EBIT/Interest expense)sustained below 1.0 time, if the company is unable to restorepositive free cash flow, or there is a further deterioration inliquidity. Additional future shareholder friendly transactionscould also pressure the rating lower.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was Retail Industrypublished in October 2015.

Payless operates more than 4,500 family footwear stores (includingjoint-ventures and franchisees) in approximately 30 countries withLTM revenues as of October 31, 2015 of over $2.4 billion. Thecompany is controlled by funds affiliated with Golden Gate Capitaland Blum Capital.

PEABODY ENERGY: Environmental Groups Balk at Self-Bonding---------------------------------------------------------Alan Scher Zagier at the Associated Press reported that TheEnvironmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago has asked state andfederal regulators to stop allowing St. Louis-based Peabody Energyto use the process known as self-bonding instead of postingconventional bonds for mine remediation.

The report noted that self-bonding allows Peabody to pledge that ithas adequate assets to pay for the estimated $92 million needed toreclaim three southern Illinois mines once there's no coal left toextract, or if the company shuts down. Its remediation costs forsix Indiana mines are estimated at $163 million. The alternativeis purchasing surety bonds from private insurers -- an approachthat the environmental group asked Illinois officials earlier thismonth to require of Peabody.

AP says the formal complaint came one day after the companyreported a $518 million loss in its fourth quarter of 2015 andannual losses of more than $2 billion.

The report also pointed out that the environmental group WildEarthGuardians filed its own complaint in Wyoming challenging Peabody'sself-bonding there and in other Rocky Mountain states.

Peabody Energy Corp. is based in St. Louis, Missouri, and is thelargest coal miner in the U.S.

As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 20, 2016,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said it lowered its corporatecredit rating on St. Louis-based Peabody Energy Corp. to 'CCC+'from 'B'.

The TCR, on Feb. 10, 2016, reported that participations in asyndicated loan under which Peabody Energy Power Corp is aborrowertraded in the secondary market at 42.30 cents-on-the-dollar duringthe week ended Friday, Jan. 29, 2016, according to data compiledbyLSTA/Thomson Reuters MTM Pricing. This represents a decrease of1.40 percentage points from the previous week. Peabody Energypays325 basis points above LIBOR to borrow under the $1.2 billionfacility. The bank loan matures on Sept. 20, 2020 and carriesMoody's B3 rating and Standard & Poor's B rating. The loan is oneof the biggest gainers and losers among 247 widely quotedsyndicated loans with five or more bids in secondary trading forthe week ended Jan. 29.

The downgrade of the IDR reflects Fitch's view that default of somekind appears probable following increased demands on liquidity,negotiations with creditors for a distressed debt exchange,continued competition in domestic markets from cheap natural gasand bankrupt coal producers, expectation of a delayed recovery inthe seaborne metallurgical coal market from very low levels, andprospects for further weakness in the Asia Pacific steam coalmarkets.

The downgrade of the second lien notes reflects their position inthe capital structure after the $1.7 billion revolver, the $1.3billion term loan, and letters of credit- secured by receivables aswell as Fitch's assumptions for lower going concern EBITDA andlower enterprise value multiples. Please see the discussion onRecovery Analysis below.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Liquidity: Fitch believes that the company has sufficient cash tosupport operations for roughly 18 months absent asset sales. OnFeb. 9, 2016, Peabody drew the remaining availability under its$1.65 billion revolving credit facility resulting in cash balancesof $778.5 million. Peabody reports that it has $123 millionavailable under its accounts receivable securitization facility.Peabody reports that letters of credit were $823.7 million as ofFeb. 9, 2016 up from $560 million at Sept. 30, 2015 of which $228.7million was outstanding under the revolver and $120 million wasoutstanding under the A/R facility.

Scheduled maturities of long-term debt over the next five years areestimated to be $102 million in 2016, $13 million in 2017, $1.5billion in 2018, $12 million in 2019 and $1.8 billion in 2020.

Covenants: The revolver has a minimum interest coverage covenant of1x through maturity and a net first lien leverage maximum of 4.5x.Fitch has forecast covenants in compliance using a $90 millionadd-back to EBITDA since the bank agreement adds non-cashshare-based compensation ($40 million) and asset retirementobligation expenses ($52 million) together with other items.

Maturity in 2018: $1.5 billion in senior unsecured notes are due inNovember of 2018 and Fitch believes these will need to berefinanced. In December 2015, Peabody disclosed that it was indiscussions with the note holders on a distressed debt exchange.The discussions involve Peabody's potential interest in raising$150 million in debt financing secured by certain of its Australianassets and a $250 million secured letter of credit facility throughsubsidiaries that do not guarantee Peabody's debt. No update wasprovided on the Feb. 11, 2016 earnings call.

Asset Sales: The company has agreements to sell assets in the firstquarter of 2016 for net proceeds aggregating $415 million. Thisfigure includes the sale of its New Mexico and Colorado assets toBowie Resources currently in the term loan market to raise $650million to finance the transaction. Fitch views access to thecapital markets as extremely challenging for coal producers.

In July 2015, Peabody announced the sale of its idled Wilkie Creekmine for up to $75 million including cash of up to $20 million andassumption of liabilities totalling $55 million. The transactionwould also release certain guarantees in place for reclamationactivities. Closing has been delayed as the buyer is havingdifficulty obtaining finance.

Recovery Analysis: Fitch has dropped its going concern EBITDA from$980 million to $650 million to reflect long term lower volumes inthe U.S., reduced overhead and break-even conditions in Australia.Peabody reported that Australian mining adjusted EBITDA was $175.4million, before hedging activity, U.S. mining adjusted EBITDA was$937.2 million, and consolidated adjusted EBITDA was $434.6 millionin 2015.

Fitch has dropped its multiple assumption from 5.5x to 4.5x givenhow much of the industry is distressed and the need for assetvaluations to incorporate assumption of asset retirementobligations. Fitch notes that using a 4x multiple results in anenterprise value that is close to a liquidation value. Fitch hasassumed a concession allowance at 5% of enterprise value to bespread among the second lien, unsecured and junior subordinatednotes.

Capital Requirements to decline: The company's fifth annual andfinal $250 million federal coal lease payment is in 2016 its fourthannual and final Patriot Coal related VEBA payment in the amount of$70 million is in 2017. The company and the United Mine Workers ofAmerica agreed to a revision of this obligation, which if approvedby the court, reduces Peabody's obligations by $70 million in 2017.

In addition, the company's hedge position has limited its benefitsfrom the weaker Australian dollar and lower fuel prices. Fitchnotes that these hedges are at the parent company.

PICO HOLDINGS: Central Square Protests Director Replacements------------------------------------------------------------By Geoffrey J. Bailey -- gjbaileypb@hotmail.com -- PICO Holdings,Inc. (Nasdaq:PICO), based in La Jolla, Calif., is a diversifiedholding company reporting recurring losses since 2008. PICO owns57% of UCP, Inc. (NYSE:UCP), 100% of Vidler Water Company, Inc., asecurities portfolio and various interests in small businesses.Central Square Management LLC and River Road Asset Management LLCcollectively own more than 14% of PICO and have agitated forgovernance and financial changes. Sean Leder owns 1% of PICO sharesand seeks shareholder authorization to call a Special Meeting toremove and replace five directors. Other activists athttp://ReformPICONow.com/have taken to the Internet to advance the shareholder cause.

On February 12, 2016, Kelly Cardwell at Central Square Management,LLC, filed a 13D with the Securities and Exchange Commission, inresponse to PICO Holdings' stunning news: Chair Kristina Leslie andDirector Robert Deuster resigned and were replaced by HowardBrownstein and Raymond Marino.

Mr. Cardwell begins, "As you know, over the past 16 months, we havepersistently and repeatedly tried to engage in a constructivedialogue with the Board and PICO's management team to discuss ourconcerns regarding the Company's prolonged underperformance andpoor governance in addition to several strategies, which, ifimplemented, we believe would materially improve the Company'sperformance for the benefit of all PICO shareholders. As part ofthese efforts, we recommended on numerous occasions the addition ofthree highly qualified individuals to the Board, including AnthonyBergamo, James Henderson and Daniel Silvers, and called on theBoard to immediately engage with us to agree on a process forseating each of Messrs. Bergamo, Henderson and Silvers, but to noavail."

Mr. Cardwell notes that he is a major shareholder, far larger thanthe shareholder referenced by PICO CEO John Hart in justifying thedirector appointments. He expresses displeasure that PICO expendedshareholder funds through the retention of an executive search firmwhen his candidates were available without charge. "We believe itis highly inappropriate for the incumbent Board members andmanagement team, which have overseen such dramatic destruction ofshareholder value, to seemingly hand-pick these newly appointeddirectors under the illusion of change without being heldaccountable for the Company's poor performance. Shareholdersrequire real and sweeping change on the Board, not just theappearance of change in reaction to the challenge of a publiclyconcerned and critical large shareholder."

The activist bloggers at www.reformpiconow.com observe that 3 outof 7 PICO directors, including the Chair, have been replaced in thelast 6 weeks. Mr. Hart and his PICO Board are making history of theignominious sort: within the last year, three differentinstitutional investors have filed adverse 13Ds. And these areintermediate-term holders, not "me-too" activists.

The activist bloggers opine that, "PICO's appointment of two newdirectors was the equivalent of giving the middle finger to CentralSquare. The latter has had three qualified Director nominees in thepublic space for several months and during that time, 3 PICO Boardseats became vacant -- and PICO filled them all arbitrarily. Suchaction is illustrative of this Board's pursuit of entrenchment andits disrespect for Central Square and all shareholders."

PITTSBURGH CORNING: Bankruptcy Plan to Take Effect in April-----------------------------------------------------------All pending appeals from the approval of Pittsburgh CorningCorporation's bankruptcy-exit Plan were withdrawn on January 6,2016, and Corning, Inc., which owns 50% of the capital stock ofPCC, expects that the Plan will become effective in April 2016.

Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several otherdefendants were named in numerous lawsuits involving claimsalleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16,2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At thetime PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were approximately11,800 claims pending against Corning in state court lawsuitsalleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC'sasbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages inexcess of one million dollars per claim. Corning has defendedthose claims on the basis of the separate corporate status of PCCand the absence of any facts supporting claims of direct liabilityarising from PCC's asbestos products.

Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoingefforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve theconcerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. OnNovember 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision finallyconfirming an Amended PCC Plan of Reorganization. On September 30,2014, the United States District Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania (affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision confirmingthe Amended PCC Plan.

On October 30, 2014, one of the objectors to the Plan appealed theDistrict Court's affirmation of the Plan to the United States Courtof Appeals for the Third Circuit. On January 6, 2016, all pendingappeals of the Plan were withdrawn and Corning expects that thePlan will become effective in April 2016.

Under the Plan as affirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed bythe District Court, Corning is required to contribute its equityinterests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V., a Belgiancorporation, and to contribute $290 million in a fixed series ofpayments, recorded at present value. Corning will contribute itsequity interest in PCC and PCE on the Plan's Funding EffectiveDate, which is expected to occur in June 2016. Corning has theoption to use its common stock rather than cash to make thesepayments, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not thenumber of shares.

The Plan requires Corning to make:

(1) one payment of $70 million one year from the date the Plan becomes effective and certain conditions are met; and

(2) five additional payments of:

$35 million, $50 million, $35 million, $50 million and $50 million,

respectively, on each of the five subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment of which is subject to reduction based on the application of credits under certain circumstances.

PPG Industries, Inc. owns the other 50% of the capital stock ofPCC.

About Pittsburgh Corning

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcyprotection (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Case No. 00-22876) on April 16, 2000,to address numerous claims alleging personal injury from exposureto asbestos. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, there wereabout 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state courtlawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposureto Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos products and typically requestingmonetary damages in excess of $1 million per claim.

The U.S. Trustee appointed a Committee of Unsecured Trade Creditorson April 28, 2000. The Bankruptcy Court authorized the retentionof Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, as counsel to theCommittee of Unsecured Trade Creditors, and Pascarella & Wiker,LLP, as financial advisor.

In 2003, a plan of reorganization was agreed to by variousparties-in-interest, but, on Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Courtissued an order denying the confirmation of that plan, citing thatthe plan was too broad in addressing independent asbestos claimsthat were not associated with Pittsburgh Corning.

On Jan. 29, 2009, an amended plan of reorganization (the AmendedPCC Plan) -- which addressed the issues raised by the Court when Itdenied confirmation of the 2003 Plan -- was filed with theBankruptcy Court.

As reported by the TCR on April 25, 2012, Pittsburgh Corning, whichis a joint venture between Corning Inc. and PPG Industries Inc.,filed another amendment to its reorganization plan.

PLENARY PROPERTIES: S&P Affirms 'BB' Subordinated Debt Rating-------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said it revised its CreditWatchPlacement on Plenary Properties NDC GP's (NDC or ProjectCo) seniorsecured debt rating of 'BBB+' to positive from developing. At thesame time Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'BB' subordinated debtrating on NDC and removed it from CreditWatch with developingimplications, where it was placed June 19, 2015. The outlook onthe subordinated debt rating is stable.

"The CreditWatch revision follows a similar revision to JohnsonControls Inc.," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst YousafSiddique. Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI) provides a parental guaranteeto the project service provider, Johnson Controls L.P. (JCLP),which we believe is irreplaceable at the current ratings to theproject.

S&P resolved the CreditWatch placement on the subordinated debtbecause any JCI upgrade would not affect the ratings on thesubordinated debt. The subordinated operations phase SACP of 'bb'caps the debt rating at 'BB'.

The CreditWatch positive placement on JCI followed the announcementthat the company will merge with Tyco International PLC, a globalfire and security solutions provider. The CreditWatch placementreflects Standard & Poor's expectation that the combined entitywill create a more comprehensive global provider of buildingproducts and services in the area of controls; heating,ventilation, and air conditioning; energy storage; fire protection;and security.

JCLP is responsible for facilities maintenance and lifecycleservices, along with any performance-related deductions, under afixed-price service contract to NDC. Given the tightly sculptedcash flows and low liquidity during operations, S&P considers JCLPas irreplaceable. As a result, the ratings on the company'sguarantor, JCI, affects those on the project.

NDC is a special-purpose vehicle that the Ontario governmentmandated in 2008 to design, construct, finance, and operate a datacenter for the Ministry of Government Services.

The CreditWatch positive placement reflects that there is at leasta 50% probability that S&P could raise the ratings on NDC's seniordebt once the merger between JCI and Tyco is complete, because S&Pexpects the combined entity to have a stronger business riskprofile than indicated by its current stand-alone operations. S&Pexpects to resolve the CreditWatch placement after it evaluates thecombined entity's business risk and financial risk profile, andmanagement's financial policies and capital structure. The companyexpects the transaction, which is subject to customary closingconditions and regulatory approvals, to close by Sept. 30, 2016.

The downgrade follows Prospect's announcement of a tender offer torepurchase two third of its senior unsecured notes at a discount ofalmost 40%. Moody's views this transaction as a distressedexchange, which is a default under Moody's definitions.

Prospect's leverage and interest expense should decline and itsearnings should improve as a result of the transaction, dependingupon the amount of notes actually tendered and repurchased, whichis uncertain and reflected in the company's Caa2 corporate familyrating and stable outlook.

Prospect's ratings could be upgraded if the company successfullyconsummates the tender offer, meaningfully reducing the company'sleverage and interest expenses. The ratings could be downgraded ifits financial performance does not improve post tender offer.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was FinanceCompanies published in October 2015.

PUERTO DEL REY: Court Sides with Marina PDR in Ex-Worker's Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Judge Jose Antonio Fuste of the United States District Court forthe District of Puerto Rico granted Marina PDR Tallyman, LLC'srequest to reconsider its previous denial of Marina PDR's motionfor summary judgment, but only to determine whether Marina PDR is asuccessor employer of Marina Puerto del Rey.

On April 15, 2014, Esther Caraballo sued Marina PDR, alleging thatMarina PDR committed employment discrimination and wrongfuldischarge in violation of Puerto Rico Law No. 80 when it terminatedher employment before the expiration of her ninety-day probationaryperiod.

Caraballo began working for Marina Puerto del Rey on October 31,2003. On May 31, 2013, after the sale of Marina Puerto del Rey toMarina PDR through bankruptcy proceedings, Caraballo executed anemployment and confidentiality agreement which stated that heremployment with Marina PDR began on May 31, 2013, and that she wassubject to a ninety-day probationary period.

Marina argued that it terminated Caraballo for "just cause" andthat her damages, if any, are limited to the time period duringwhich she worked for Marina PDR -- that is, from May 31, 2013, toAugust 19, 2013.

Judge Fuste found that the damages for any successful claim forwrongful termination under Law 80 will be limited to the timeCaraballo was employed by Marina PDR, in other words, from May 31,2013, to August 19, 2013. The judge explained that the plainlanguage of the Order Confirming Sale undoubtedly defeatsCaraballo's claim that her time in service with Marina Puerto delRey continued on to Marina PDR. Judge Fuste further explained thatCaraballo's signed employment contract, which acknowledged that shewas a new employee of Marina PDR as of May 31, 2013, cured anyremaining concerns as to whether the time in grade of Marina Puertodel Rey's employees remained with them after its sale to MarinaPDR.

The Charles A. Cuprill, PSC Law Offices, in San Juan, Puerto Rico,represents the Debtor as counsel.

Monday's edition of the TCR-LA delivers a list of indicativeprices for bond issues that reportedly trade well below par.Prices are obtained by TCR-LA editors from a variety of outsidesources during the prior week we think are reliable. Thosesources may not, however, be complete or accurate. The MondayBond Pricing table is compiled on the Friday prior to publication.Prices reported are not intended to reflect actual trades. Pricesfor actual trades are probably different. Our objective is toshare information, not make markets in publicly traded securities.Nothing in the TCR-LA constitutes an offer or solicitation to buyor sell any security of any kind. It is likely that some entityaffiliated with a TCR-LA editor holds some position in theissuers' public debt and equity securities about which we report.

Tuesday's edition of the TCR-LA features a list of companies withinsolvent balance sheets obtained by our editors based on thelatest balance sheets publicly available a day prior topublication. At first glance, this list may look like thedefinitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.Don't be fooled. Assets, for example, reported at historical costnet of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm'sassets. A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet forliabilities that may never materialize. The prices at whichequity securities trade in public market are determined by morethan a balance sheet solvency test.

Submissions about insolvency-related conferences are encouraged.Send announcements to conferences@bankrupt.com

PYKKONEN CAPITAL: Files Chapter 11 to Avoid Foreclosure-------------------------------------------------------Gabrielle Porter, writing for Clear Creek Courant, reported thatNora Pykkonen, the owner of Echo Mountain Resort, has filed forChapter 11 bankruptcy in a move she said will help her restructuredebt but shouldn't immediately affect operations.

"I only filed (for bankruptcy) since my secured lender wasthreatening to start foreclosure on my house and the ski area. . .," Ms. Pykkonen wrote in an e-mail to Clear Creek Courant,adding that she has paid the lender about $300,000 in interest overthe past three years.

"We are currently operating in the black and working through all ofour possible options," she added.

The secured creditor, she said, provided about $1 million infinancing. She did not name that secured creditor.

The report says Pykkonen is scheduled to appear before U.S.Bankruptcy Judge Joseph Rosania Jr. on March 15 to answer questionsabout the company's assets and liabilities, reasons for filingbankruptcy, and her plan for reorganization.

Pykkonen Capital LLC bought the ski area in August 2012 for $1.53million, according to county records. In its petition, PykkonenCapital estimated $1 million to $10 million in both assets andliabilities.

QUANTUM CORP: FMR LLC Reports 10% Stake as of Feb. 12-----------------------------------------------------In an amended Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on Feb. 12, 2015, FMR LLC and Abigail P. Johnsondisclosed that they beneficially own 27,162,995 shares of commonstock of Quantum Corporation representing 10.292% of the sharesoutstanding. A copy of the regulatory filing is available for freeat http://is.gd/6T8jqK

About Quantum Corp.

Based in San Jose, California, Quantum Corp. (NYSE:QTM) --http://www.quantum.com/-- is a storage company specializing in backup, recovery and archive. Quantum provides a comprehensive,integrated range of disk, tape, and software solutions supportedby a world-class sales and service organization.

Quantum reported net income of $16.7 million on $553 million oftotal revenue for the year ended March 31, 2015, compared to a netloss of $21.5 million on $553 million of total revenue for the yearended March 31, 2014.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Company had $278 million in total assets,$355 million in total liabilities and a $76.9 million totalstockholders' deficit.

Quicksilver Resources Inc. (OTCQB: KWKA) is an exploration andproduction company engaged in the development and production oflong-lived natural gas and oil properties onshore North America. Based in Fort Worth, Texas, the company claims to be a leader inthe development and production from unconventional reservoirsincluding shale gas, and coal bed methane. Following more than 30years of operating as a private company, Quicksilver became publicin 1999.

The Company has U.S. offices in Fort Worth, Texas; Glen Rose,Texas; Steamboat Springs, Colorado; Craig, Colorado and Cut Bank,Montana. The Company's Canadian subsidiary, Quicksilver ResourcesCanada Inc. is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta.

On March 17, 2015, Quicksilver Resources Inc. and certain of itsaffiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11oftitle 11 of the United States Code in Delaware. Quicksilver'sCanadian subsidiaries were not included in the chapter 11 filing.

The Company's legal advisors are Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & FeldLLPin the U.S. and Bennett Jones in Canada. Richards Layton &Finger,P.A., is legal co-counsel in the Chapter 11 cases. Houlihan LokeyCapital, Inc., is serving as financial advisor. Garden City GroupInc. is the claims and noticing agent.

The U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed five creditors ofQuicksilver Resources Inc. to serve on the official committee ofunsecured creditors.

Quicksilver Resources Inc. and its U.S. subsidiaries on January22, 2016, entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with BlueStoneNatural Resources II, LLC pursuant to which the Buyer agreed topurchase substantially all of the Sellers' U.S. oil and gas assetsfor a cash purchase price of $245.0 million.

The consummation of the transactions contemplated by the PurchaseAgreement is subject to customary closing conditions, and suchtransactions are expected to close on or before March 31, 2016.

RADIOSHACK CORP: G1, Susquehanna No Longer Own Shares-----------------------------------------------------G1 Execution Services, LLC and Susquehanna Securities no longerholds shares of RadioShack Corporation Common Stock, $1 par valueper share, as of December 31, 2015, according to a Schedule 13G(Amendment No. 1) filed by G1 and Susquehanna with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, RadioShack is a retailer ofmobile technology products and services, as well as productsrelated to personal and home technology and power supply needs. RadioShack's retail network includes more than 4,300company-operated stores in the United States, 270 company-operatedstores in Mexico, and approximately 1,000 dealer and other outletsworldwide.

After an auction in March 2015, the Debtors sold most of the assetsto General Wireless, Inc., an entity formed by Standard General,L.P., for $150 million. The Debtors also sold Mexican assets toOffice Depot de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., for $31.8 million plus theassumption of debt. Regal Forest Holding Co. Ltd. bought theDebtors' intellectual property assets in Latin America for apurchase price of $5,000,000.

In June 2015, the Debtors changed their name to RS LegacyCorporation, et al., following the sale of the Company's brandname and customer data to General Wireless.

The bankruptcy judge on Oct. 2, 2015, issued an order confirmingthe first amended joint plan of liquidation of the Debtors. Thecenterpiece of the Plan is the resolution of various disputesamong the Debtors, the Creditors' Committee and the SCP SecuredParties.

The Plan was declared effective on Oct. 7, 2015.

REX ENERGY: S&P Lowers CCR to CC on Potential Debt Exchange Offer-----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its corporate creditrating on Rex Energy Corp. to 'CC' from 'CCC-'. The outlook isnegative. S&P also lowered the issue-level rating on the company'ssenior unsecured notes to 'C' from 'CC'. The recovery rating is'5', indicating S&P's expectation of modest (10% to 30%, high endof the range) recovery in the event of a default.

"The downgrade follows Rex's announcement that it has launched anexchange offer to existing holders of its 8.875% and 6.25% seniorunsecured notes for shares of common equity and a new issue of 10%senior secured second-lien notes due 2020," said Standard & Poor'scredit analyst Aaron McLean.

The outlook is negative. Once the transaction has closed, S&Pexpects to lower the corporate credit rating to 'SD' (selectivedefault) and the issue-level rating on the unsecured notes to 'D'.S&P would then review the ratings based on the new capitalstructure and considers an upgrade when there is more certaintythat the company is no longer pursuing distressed exchanges. S&Palso expects to rate the new second-lien notes when there is moredetailed information about the resulting capital structure.

S&P could raise the ratings if the transaction does not close.

SALON MEDIA: Incurs $251,000 Net Loss in Third Quarter------------------------------------------------------Salon Media Group, Inc., filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission its quarterly report on Form 10-Q disclosing a net lossof $251,000 on $1.95 million of net revenue for the three monthsended Dec. 31, 2015, compared to a net loss of $803,000 on $1.47million of net revenue for the same period in 2014.

For the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2015, the Company reported a netloss of $1.39 million on $5.32 million of net revenue compared to anet loss of $2.88 million on $3.74 million of net revenue for thenine months ended Dec. 31, 2014.

As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Company had $2.08 million in total assets,$9.83 million in total liabilities and a total stockholders'deficit of $7.75 million.

"Our increased ad revenue speaks to how our continued investmentsin engaging new formats ranging from editorial video to our bespokecustom advertising solutions are being realized," said Salon MediaGroup CEO Cynthia Jeffers. "Coupling this with our enhanced mobiledelivery of Salon's fearless journalism strengthens ourrelationship with both readers and brand advertisers."

San Francisco, Calif.-based Salon Media Group (OTC BB: SLNM.OB)-- http://www.Salon.com/-- is an online news and social networking company and an Internet publishing pioneer.

Salon Media reported a net loss of $3.9 million on $4.9 million ofnet revenues for the year ended March 31, 2015, compared to a netloss of $2.2 million on $6 million of net revenues for the yearended March 31, 2014.

Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc., in San Francisco, California, issued a"going concern" qualification on the consolidated financialstatements for the year ended March 31, 2015, citing that theCompany has suffered recurring losses and negative cash flows fromoperations and has an accumulated deficit of $122.6 million as ofMarch 31, 2015. These conditions raise substantial doubt about itsability to continue as a going concern.

SAPPHIRE DEVELOPMENT: Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case Affirmed-----------------------------------------------------------Judge Michael P. Shea of the United States District Court for theDistrict of Connecticut affirmed the bankruptcy court's ordergranting the motion to dismiss Sapphire Development, LLC'sbankruptcy case.

Robert McKay moved to dismiss Sapphire's Chapter 11 bankruptcy for"cause" under Section 1112(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, arguingthat it was filed in bad faith. Sapphire had filed for bankruptcyone business day before the start of trial in a state court lawsuitthat sought to void the transfer to it of real estate, thuseffectively staying the state court action.

On appeal, Judge Shea held that the said court's dismissal for"cause" was supported by evidence that Sapphire's bankruptcy filingwas a tactical litigation maneuver that would further no purpose ofthe bankruptcy laws. Judge Shea found that Sapphire had no need tofile for bankruptcy to reorganize or secure a "fresh start" as abusiness because it conducted no business and had done nothing ofsignificance in recent years other than hold the property on whichits principal resides. The judge found only one explanation forSapphire's bankruptcy filing: a trial in the state court action wasabout to begin in which the plaintiff sought a finding thatSapphire's principal, rather than Sapphire itself, actually ownedthe real estate.

SEAPORT AIRLINES: Files Chapter 11 Petition-------------------------------------------SeaPort Airlines, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofOregon on Feb. 5.

After much consideration, the Board of Directors of theOregon-based airline has determined that reorganization is the bestpath forward for SeaPort Airlines, allowing the company to achievelong-term viability while maintaining its ability to provide airservice to customers and communities. The announcement comes afterthe airline took a number of necessary steps to reduce its routenetwork as a result of a national pilot shortage.

Normal, day-to-day operations will not be interrupted by thefiling. During the Chapter 11 process, SeaPort Airlines willcontinue to provide safe and reliable service without interruptionto the destinations it currently serves.

The company also announced that Rob McKinney has resigned aspresident and CEO. SeaPort's executive vice president, TimothySieber, is now president of the company. Tim joined the company inJuly 2011 and has over 25 years of experience in the airlineindustry.

"The difficult decision to file for bankruptcy protection wasnecessary to preserve the future of our airline. I am confident wewill come out the other side of reorganization with a financiallystronger airline in a better position to handle the challenges ofthe industry and provide the quality service our customers,employees and partners deserve," said Tim Sieber, president ofSeaPort Airlines.

Under court supervision, SeaPort will propose a Plan ofReorganization that will allow the company to emerge a strong andviable airline positioned to meet the challenges not only of thepilot shortage, but of the highly competitive airline industry.

"Our customers are first and foremost our top priority as we worktowards our goals of building a better, more sustainable airline.We're moving forward, one flight at a time, by focusing ondelivering on our core promise to each customer of getting them totheir destination safely and on-time." said Sieber.

In its petition, SeaPort estimated $1 million to $10 million inboth assets and liabilities. The petition was signed by Timothy F.Sieber, president. A list of its 20 largest unsecured creditors isavailable at http://bankrupt.com/misc/orb16-30406.pdf

SHERIDAN FUND I: S&P Raises LT ICRs to CCC-, Outlook Negative-------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, on Feb. 8, 2016, said it raisedits long-term issuer credit ratings on Sheridan Production PartnersI-A, Sheridan Investment Partners I, and Sheridan ProductionPartners I-M to 'CCC-' from 'SD'. The outlook is negative. At thesame time, S&P affirmed its issue ratings on the term loans at 'D'. The ratings on the revolving credit facilities remain at 'CCC+'and continue to be on CreditWatch with negative implications.

"The upgrade reflects our updated view following Sheridan Fund I'sbelow-market prepayments," said Standard & Poor's credit analystTrevor Martin. On Feb. 2, 2016, S&P downgraded the fund to 'SD' asa result of the transactions. Although the fund is still out ofcompliance with its asset coverage ratio (it has six months fromthe reassessment of the borrowing base to regain compliance), theprepayment brought the company within $25 million of the required$1.0 billion.

According to S&P's criteria, it viewed the below-par repayment asdistressed and, hence, a de facto restructuring and default on thecompany's obligations. S&P is raising the issuer credit rating to'CCC-' based on its forward-looking opinion, which indicates thatS&P believes further restructurings are likely in the next sixmonths. For the same reason the ratings on the first-lien seniorsecured term loans will remain at 'D' until S&P believes that theprospect of additional prepayments is remote.

The negative outlook reflects S&P's view that further reductions inthe borrowing base are likely to strain what S&P already perceivesto be a "weak" liquidity position. S&P also believes thatadditional below-par prepayments are likely in the next six months. S&P is unlikely to revise the outlook to stable unless oil and gasprices show growth and stability.

SHERIDAN FUND II: S&P Raises LT ICRs to 'CCC-', Outlook Negative----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, on Feb. 8, 2016, said it raisedits long-term issuer credit ratings on Sheridan Production PartnersII-A, Sheridan Investment Partners II, and Sheridan ProductionPartners II-M (collectively referred to as "Sheridan Fund II") to'CCC-' from 'SD'. The outlook is negative. At the same time, S&Paffirmed its issue ratings on the term loans at 'D'. The ratingson the revolving credit facilities remain at 'CCC' and continue tobe on CreditWatch with negative implications.

The upgrade reflects S&P's updated view following Sheridan FundII's below-market prepayments. On Feb. 2, 2016, S&P downgraded thefund to 'SD' as a result of the transactions. Although the fund isstill out of compliance with its asset coverage ratio (it has sixmonths from the reassessment of the borrowing base to regaincompliance), the prepayment brought the company within $51 million of the required $1.2 billion.

According to S&P's criteria, it viewed the below-par prepayment asdistressed and, hence, a de facto restructuring and default on thecompany's obligations. "We are raising the issuer credit rating to'CCC-' based on our forward-looking opinion, which indicates thatwe believe further restructurings are likely in the next sixmonths," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Trevor Martin. Forthe same reason the ratings on the first-lien senior secured termloans will remain at 'D' until S&P believes that the prospect ofadditional prepayments is remote.

The negative outlook reflects S&P's view that further reductions inthe borrowing base are likely to strain what S&P already perceivesto be a "weak" liquidity position. S&P also believes thatadditional below-par prepayments are likely in the next six months. S&P is unlikely to revise the outlook to stable unless oil and gasprices show growth and stability.

On Nov. 25, 2015, Sheridan I amended its senior secured term loancredit facilities to introduce a process for lenders to voluntarilytender their loans for prepayment. Post this transaction, throughFeb. 1, 2016, Sheridan I prepaid $130 million principal amount ofthe term loans at a steep discount to the par value.

Moody's considers Sheridan I's prepayment of term loans at adiscount as a distressed exchange, which is an event of defaultunder Moody's definition of default. As noted above, Moody'sappended the Caa3-PD PDR with a "/LD" designation indicatinglimited default. The "/LD" designation will be removed threebusiness days hereafter.

SIP I, Fund I-A, Fund I-B, and Fund I-M are a related group ofprivate investment companies created to acquire and exploit matureproducing oil and gas properties in the United States.

SHERSON GROUP: Court Approves Final Report, Closes Chapter 15 Case------------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Sean H. Lane of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York (i) approved the final report of RichterAdvisory Group Inc., in its capacity as court-appointed foreignrepresentative of Sherson Group, Inc.; and (ii) closed the Chapter15 case of the Debtor.

Michael B. Schaedle, Esq., at Blank Rome LLP submitted acertificate of no objection to the final report.

On Dec. 17, 2015, the foreign representative submitted that theChapter 15 case has been fully administered because there were nooutstanding motions, contested matters or adversary proceedings. Therefore, the requirements of Section 350(a) of the BankruptcyCode have been met.

Sherson Group Inc., distributor of the Nine West footwear in 48retail locations, filed a Chapter 15 bankruptcy petition (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 15-11765) on July 6, 2015, in Manhattan, to seekrecognition of its Canadian proceedings.

The U.S. case is assigned to Judge Sean H. Lane. Michael B.Schaedle, Esq., at Blank Rome LLP, in Philadelphia, serves as U.S.counsel to the Debtor.

Aird & Berlis has been retained by Sherson Group to represent theCompany as its primary counsel in its Canadian proceeding undertheCanadian Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3.

Richter Advisory Group Inc. was selected by the Company astrustee.Richter, as foreign representative, signed the Chapter 15petition.

The Company's primary brand is Nine West and distribution occursprimarily through its 48 retail locations in Canada (although asubstantial percentage of sales occur through wholesale andE-commerce channels). It employs in excess of 600 workersthroughout Canada.

The Company was established in 1984 as Sherson Marketing Inc.,which later became Sherson Marketing Corp. and, subsequentlyamalgamated with another entity to become Sherson Group. It isorganized under the laws of the Province of Ontario with aregistered address 1446 Don Mills Road, Suite 100, Toronto,Ontario, Canada.

STEPHEN D. MCCORMICK: 8th Cir. Dismisses Appeal from Atty Fee Order-------------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit dismissed,for lack of jurisdiction, the appeal filed by Stephen and KarenMcCormick from the ruling of the Eight Circuit Bankruptcy AppellatePanel, which held that Starion Financial is entitled to recover theattorney's fees it incurred while collecting on its secured debt inthe course of the McCormick's bankruptcy proceedings.

The BAP had reversed the ruling of the bankruptcy court andremanded to the latter for further proceedings to determine thereasonableness and the timeliness of Starion Financial's feerequest.

On appeal, the Eight Circuit held that because the resolution ofthe timeliness and reasonableness of the fee application affect themerits of the dispute over the fee request, the BAP's remand orderleaves the bankruptcy court tasks, which are likely to "generate anew appeal or to affect the issue that the disappointed party wantsto raise on appeal."

A full-text copy of the Eight Circuit's February 1, 2016 opinion isavailable at http://is.gd/7Cfqtnfrom Leagle.com.

SUNDEVIL POWER: Gets Commitment for $45-Mil. DIP Facility---------------------------------------------------------Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC and SPH Holdco LLC seek the BankruptcyCourt's authority to enter into a debtor-in-possession facilitywith CLMG Corp., as administrative agent and as collateral agent,and the lenders led by Beal Bank USA.

The Debtors said they were able to reach an agreement with BealBank, their prepetition lender, on the terms of a postpetitionfinancing arrangement that addresses their liquidity needs duringthe proposed sale process, allowing the Debtors to continue tooperate their businesses, pay insurance premiums, perform necessarymaintenance on their power blocks, and otherwise fund theadministrative costs of these Chapter 11 cases.

The Lenders have agreed to provide the Debtors $45 million, ofwhich $7.5 million will be available on an interim basis pendingentry of the Final Order.

The Eurodollar Rate Loans will will accrue interest at theEurodollar Rate, plus 7.50% per annum. Base Rate Loans will accrueinterest at the Base Rate, plus 6.50% per annum. During an Eventof Default, interest will accrue on Base Rate Loans at the rateequal to the Base Rate, plus 8.50% per annum, and on EurodollarRate loans at the Eurodollar Rate, plus 9.50% per annum.

The term of the DIP Facility will commence on the date of entry ofthe Interim Order and, prior to the entry of the Final Order, endon the earlier of (i) the date that is 35 days after the PetitionDate, (ii) June 30, 2016, (iii) the termination of the DIP Facilityby the DIP Lenders as a result of an Event of Default which iscontinuing, (iv) the closing of a 363 sale of substantially all ofthe Debtors' assets, and (v) the InterimOrder ceasing to be in full force and effect for any reason.

The Debtors propose to grant to the DIP Agent for the benefit ofthe DIP Lenders and the other secured parties under the DIP LoanDocuments a superpriority administrative claim and first prioritypriming liens on and security interests in all assets and propertyof the Debtors.

The Debtors also obtained permission from the Prepetition Lender touse cash collateral, subject to the Court's approval.

About Sundevil Power

Merchant power generators Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC and SPHHoldco LLC sought protection under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 16-10369 and 16-10370,respectively), on Feb. 12, 2016. The petitions were signed byBlake M. Carlson as authorized signatory.

The Debtors estimated assets in the range of $100 million to $500million and liabilities of at least $100 million.

The Debtors have engaged Vinson & Elkins LLP as legal counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP as Delaware counsel, and Garden City Group as claims and noticing agent.

Judge Kevin J. Carey is assigned to the case.

SUNDEVIL POWER: Hires Garden City as Claims and Noticing Agent--------------------------------------------------------------Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC and SPH Holdco LLC are seekingauthority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware to appoint Garden City Group, LLC as their claims andnoticing agent to, among other things, (a) distribute requirednotices to parties-in-interest, (b) receive, maintain, docket, andotherwise administer the proofs of claim filed in these Chapter 11cases; and (c) as necessary, provide other administrative servicesthat would fall within the purview of services to be provided bythe Office of the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court.

Although the Debtors have not yet filed their schedules of assetsand liabilities, they anticipate that there may be in excess of 200entities to be noticed, many of which are expected to file proofsof claim. The Debtors said they seek to employ GCG to, among otherthings, relieve the Court and the Clerk's Office of administrativeburdens given the number of creditors and other parties in interestinvolved in these chapter 11 cases.

In addition to the compensation, the Debtors have agreed toreimburse GCG for all out-of-pocket expenses.

The Debtors request that the undisputed fees and expenses incurredby GCG in the performance of the services be treated asadministrative expenses of their estates and be paid in theordinary course of business without further application to or orderof the Court.

Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtors provided GCG a retainer inthe amount of $25,000. On Feb. 9, 2016, the Debtors provided GCGwith a retainer replenishment in the amount of $5,000. GCG seeksto apply the retainer to all prepetition invoices and thereafterhold the retainer under the Engagement Agreement during theseChapter 11 cases as security for the payment of postpetition feesand expenses incurred under the Engagement Agreement.

The Debtors have agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GCGand its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, and agentsunder certain circumstances specified in the Engagement Agreement,except in circumstances resulting solely from GCG's grossnegligence, fraud, or willful misconduct.

GCG represented that it is a "disinterested person" as that term isdefined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code with respect tothe matters upon which it is engaged.

About Sundevil Power

Merchant power generators Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC and SPHHoldco LLC sought protection under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 16-10369 and 16-10370,respectively), on Feb. 12, 2016. The petitions were signed byBlake M. Carlson as authorized signatory.

The Debtors estimated assets in the range of $100 million to $500million and liabilities of at least $100 million.

The Debtors have engaged Vinson & Elkins LLP as legal counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP as Delaware counsel, and Garden City Group as claims and noticing agent.

Judge Kevin J. Carey is assigned to the case.

SUNDEVIL POWER: Proposes April 11, 2016 as General Claims Bar Date------------------------------------------------------------------Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC and SPH Holdco LLC request that theU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware Court establish:(a) the deadline for holders of prepetition claims to file proofsof claim and proofs of interest as April 11, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.(EST), 60 days after the Petition Date; and (b) the deadline forgovernmental entities to file proofs of claim as Aug. 11, 2016, at5:00 p.m. (EST), which is more than 180 days of the Petition Date.

The Debtors propose that any entity holding an interest, whichinterest is based exclusively upon the ownership of: (a) amembership interest in a limited liability company; (b) common orpreferred stock in a corporation; or (c) warrants or rights topurchase, sell or subscribe to such a security or interest, neednot file a proof of interest on or before the General Bar Date;provided, however, Interest Holders who want to assert claimsagainst the Debtors that arise out of or relate to the ownership orpurchase of an Interest, including claims arising out of orrelating to the sale, issuance or distribution of the Interest,must file a claim by the applicable Bar Dates.

The Debtors propose that entities that fail to properly file aProof of Claim Form by the applicable Bar Date be forever barred,estopped and enjoined from: (a) asserting any prepetition claimagainst the Debtors that such entity may possess and that (i) is inan amount that exceeds the amount, if any, that is identified inthe Schedules on behalf of such entity as undisputed,noncontingent, and liquidated or (ii) is of a different nature,classification or priority than any claim identified in theSchedules on behalf of such entity; and (b) voting upon, orreceiving distributions under, any Chapter 11 plan in these casesin respect of an Unscheduled Claim.

All entities asserting claims against both Debtors must file aseparate form with respect to each Debtor and identify on each formthe particular Debtor against which those entities assert theirrespective claims.

The Debtors intend to publish notice of the Bar Dates in the WallStreet Journal and certain additional local publications as may bedeemed appropriate as a means to provide notice of the Bar Dates tounknown potential claimants.

About Sundevil Power

Merchant power generators Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC and SPHHoldco LLC sought protection under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 16-10369 and 16-10370,respectively), on Feb. 12, 2016. The petitions were signed byBlake M. Carlson as authorized signatory.

The Debtors estimated assets in the range of $100 million to $500million and liabilities of at least $100 million.

The Debtors have engaged Vinson & Elkins LLP as legal counsel,Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP as Delaware counsel, and Garden City Group as claims and noticing agent.

"Due to the Debtors limited resources and their prepetition focuson preparing for a smooth transition into chapter 11, the Debtorshave not yet had a sufficient opportunity to complete thepreparation of the Schedules and Statements and do not anticipatehaving the Schedules and Statements ready for filing within the14-day period prescribed by Bankruptcy Rule 1007(c)," said StevenK. Kortanek, Esq., at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, counsel for theDebtors.

The Debtors expect that it will take a total of 30 days from thePetition Date to complete, review, and file the Schedules andStatements with the Court.

Meanwhile, the Debtors said they will continue to work diligentlyto cooperate with ongoing information requests from creditors, theUST, and other parties-in-interest.

About Sundevil Power

Merchant power generators Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC and SPHHoldco LLC sought protection under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 16-10369 and 16-10370,respectively), on Feb. 12, 2016. The petitions were signed byBlake M. Carlson as authorized signatory.

The Debtors estimated assets in the range of $100 million to $500million and liabilities of at least $100 million.

The Debtors have engaged Vinson & Elkins LLP as legal counsel,Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP as Delaware counsel, and Garden City Group as claims and noticing agent.

Judge Kevin J. Carey is assigned to the case.

TAYLOR-WHARTON: $25M DIP Facility Has Final Approval----------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered afinal order authorizing debtors Taylor-Wharton International LLC,et al., to obtain postpetition financing and use cash collateral.

The Court authorized Taylor-Wharton International LLC,Taylor-Wharton Cryogenics LLC, Sherwood Valve LLC, TW Express LLC("Borrowers") to obtain senior secured priming and superprioritypostpetition financing, which consists of a revolving creditfacility for up to $13,250,000 ("DIP Revolver Facility"), includingletter of credit sub-facilities for up to $7,250,000 ("DIP LCSub-Facility"), and the Roll Up DIP Loans of $12,000,000.

The amount of the DIP Revolver Facility and the DIP LC Sub-Facilitywill be reduced as provided in the DIP Credit Agreement, pursuantto the terms of (a) the Court's Final Order, (b) the Senior SecuredPriming and Superpriority Credit Agreement dated Oct. 13, 2015("DIP Credit Agreement") and (c) any and all other Loan Documents,to:

(1) fund, among other things, ongoing work capital, generalcorporate expenditures and other financing needs of the Debtors;

(2) provide letters of credit for the account of any of theDebtors;

(3) covert to DIP Obligations under the DIP Loan Documents$12,000,000 of the outstanding principal amount of the respectiveportions of the Term Loan A, Term Loan B and Revolving A Loan, heldby DIP Revolving Lenders ratably in accordance with theirrespective shares of the DIP Revolver Facility;

(5) pay certain transaction fees and other costs and expensesof administration of the Cases; and

(6) pay fees and expenses and interest owed to the DIP SecuredParties under the DIP Loan Documents.

Prepetition, the Debtors entered into a First Lien Credit Agreementwith financial institutions party thereto as "Lenders" and AntaresCapital LP, as administrative agent and collateral agent("Prepetition First Lien Secured Parties"). As of the PetitionDate, the Borrowers owed the Prepetition First Lien Secured Partiesan aggregate principal amount of not less than $7,604,839 withrespect to the Letters of Obligations and not less than $4,452,737with respect to Revolving A Loan, $29,384,686 with respect to TermLoan A, $11,137,467 with respect to Term Loan B and $16,886,122with respect to Term Loan C, plus all accrued and accruing andunpaid interest thereon and any additional fees, expenses, andother amounts due under the Prepetition First Lien Loan Documents.

Prepetition, the Debtors also entered into the a Second Lien NoteFacility with other parties thereto that are designated as a"Credit Party", financial institutions party thereto as"Purchasers" and General Electric Capital Corporation, asadministrative agent and collateral agent ("Prepetition Second LienSecured Parties"). As of the Petition Date, the Borrowers owedthe Prepetition Second Lien Secured Parties an aggregate principalamount of not less than $39,523,000, plus accrued and unpaidinterest and any additional fees, expenses and other amounts due.

Judge Shannon entered a separate order approving a Stipulationexecuted by the Creditors Committee, the Prepetition First LienAgent and Prepetition Second Lien Collateral Agent, extending theCommittee Challenge Deadline from Dec. 23, 2015 through Jan. 25,2016.

Cryogenics is a leading designer, engineer and manufacturer ofcryogenic equipment designed to transport and store liquefiedatmospheric and hydrocarbon gases. Cryogenics has a single UnitedStates operation in Theodore, Alabama. Cryogenics is the director indirect parent of several foreign non-debtor subsidiarieswhich have manufacturing operations in China, Malaysia, Slovakia,and warehousing operations in Germany and Australia.

The Debtors estimated both assets and liabilities of $100 millionto $500 million. O'Neal Steel Inc. is listed as the largestunsecured creditor holding a trade claim of $788,815.

Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon is assigned to the case.

TAYLOR-WHARTON: Domestic Assets Sold to Worthington for $33.3MM---------------------------------------------------------------Taylor-Wharton International LLC and Taylor-Wharton Cryogenics LLCin November won approval from the Bankruptcy Court to sellsubstantially all their domestic assets, including its CryoSciencebusiness, to a unit of Worthington Industries, Inc.

The Debtors filed the sale and bidding procedures motion on Oct. 7,2015. On Oct. 29, the Court approved the bidding procedures, whichset a Nov. 11 deadline for initial bids. An auction was held onNov. 16. The Debtors selected Worthington Cylinder Corp. assuccessful bidder. The sale hearing was held Nov. 20.

Haier Medical and Laboratory Products USA, Inc., as stalking horsebidder, was under contract to purchase the assets, absent higherand better offers. Haier Medical is entitled to a break-up fee of$875,000.

Cryogenics is a designer, engineer and manufacturer of cryogenicequipment designed to transport and store liquefied atmospheric andhydrocarbon gases. Cryogenics has a single United States operationin Theodore, Alabama. Cryogenics is the direct or indirect parentof several foreign non-debtor subsidiaries which have manufacturingoperations in China, Malaysia, Slovakia, and warehousing operationsin Germany and Australia.

A copy of the Sale Order filed Nov. 23, 2015, is available for freeat:

In documents filed prior to the sale hearing, the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors pointed out that the saleconsideration provided by Worthington for the U.S. assets is notsufficient to pay off the Debtors' prepetition secured lenders. The Committee is concerned that the Worthington sale, and anybudgetary modifications that the secured lenders may impose as aresult, will render the estates administratively insolvent. Inconnection with an order approving the Worthington sale, theCommittee asserts that the Court should require a showing by theDebtors that the bankruptcy estates are solvent, and that theDebtors have adequate funds to cover all currently accrued andaccruing (not only the budgeted) priority and administrativegexpense claims. In addition, the Committee pointed out that giventhat the non-U.S. assets appear to be the only tangible assets leftfor the estates (excluding estate causes of action and otherclaims), the Debtors should clarify their proposed course of actionwith respect to the Foreign Assets and these Chapter 11 Cases ingeneral.

Antares Capital LP, in its capacity as administrative agent andcollateral agent under the DIP Facility and the Prepetition FirstLien Credit Agreement, responded to the Committee's filings bypointing out that the Final DIP Order contains provisionsspecifically negotiated with the Committee that fully address theirwholly speculative and groundless concern about the futureadministrative solvency of the Debtors. For example, the ApprovedBudget attached to the Final DIP Order has a line item thatprovides for the payment of all Section 503(b)(9) claims (up to avery generous limit (to which the Committee agreed) that exceeds any reasonable estimate of that category of administrative claims). The Final DIP Order also sets forth a procedure for the parties'negotiation of a Supplemental Approved Budget that will replace thecurrent Approved Budget once the closing of the Worthington saleoccurs. Post-closing, the Debtors’ operational expenses will bedramatically reduced, as the Debtors will no longer have anyoperating businesses or even any tangible assets other than thevery modest amounts of non-CryoScience inventory and receivablesthat will be monetized in short order, and as a result, there willbe little, if any, wind-down expenses. Moreover, the bulk of suchoperational wind-down expenses should be funded by the paymentsunder the transition services agreement to be entered into withWorthington at closing.

Antares Capital relates that as for the Foreign Assets, the costsof the sale process will be almost entirely borne by the foreignNon-Debtor Affiliates, which retained their own investment bankerprior to the Petition Date. In short, it is virtuallyinconceivable that there are any administrative expenses that theDebtors may incur in the future that would not be covered by anySupplemental Approved Budget that is agreed upon, and the Committeecertainly has not identified any such administrative expense.

Limited objections to the sale motion were filed by Oracle America,Inc., Samuel Pressure Vessel Group, and other parties regarding theassumption of assignment of agreements. The Court ruled that theobjections are moot as none of the agreements are listed onSchedule 1.1(b) of the Worthington APA as executory contracts to beassigned to the buyer.

To address a limited objection filed by the ACE Companies, the SaleOrder provides that the transferred assets will not include anyinsurance policies and any related agreements issued by ACE.

Cryogenics is a designer, engineer and manufacturer of cryogenicequipment designed to transport and store liquefied atmospheric andhydrocarbon gases. Cryogenics has a single United States operationin Theodore, Alabama. Cryogenics is the direct or indirect parentof several foreign non-debtor subsidiaries which have manufacturingoperations in China, Malaysia, Slovakia, and warehousing operationsin Germany and Australia.

The Debtors estimated both assets and liabilities of $100 millionto $500 million. O'Neal Steel Inc. is listed as the largestunsecured creditor holding a trade claim of $788,815.

Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon is assigned to the case.

TAYLOR-WHARTON: Files Rule 2015.3 Report for Endurium, TWC----------------------------------------------------------Taylor-Wharton International LLC and Taylor-Wharton Cryogenics LLCfiled a report as of Oct. 7, 2015, on the value, operations andprofitability of entities in which the estates hold a substantialor controlling interest, as required by Bankruptcy Rule 2015.3. The report covers foreign subsidiaries Endurium Holding Company andTWC Australia Pty Ltd.

Endurium Holding is a Cyprian entity owned by Taylor-WhartonCryogenics LLC. Endurium had $55.2 million in assets and $48.5million in liabilities as of Oct. Oct. 7, 2015. It had net incomeof $183,000 of net sales of $41.7 million for the period endingOct. 7, 2015.

TWC Australia is an Australian entity owned by Taylor-WhartonCryogenics. The Debtor had total assets of $1.11 million and totalliabilities of $639,000 as of Oct. 7, 2015. The company had a lossof $75,000 on net sales of $1.64 million for the period ending Oct.7, 2015.

Cryogenics is a leading designer, engineer and manufacturer ofcryogenic equipment designed to transport and store liquefiedatmospheric and hydrocarbon gases. Cryogenics has a single UnitedStates operation in Theodore, Alabama. Cryogenics is the directorindirect parent of several foreign non-debtor subsidiaries whichhave manufacturing operations in China, Malaysia, Slovakia, andwarehousing operations in Germany and Australia.

At the same time, Standard & Poor's lowered its issue-level ratingon the company's senior unsecured notes to 'B+' from 'BB'. The '3'recovery rating on this debt, which corresponds with meaningful(50%-70%, at the upper half of the range) recovery in our simulateddefault scenario, is unchanged.

"The downgrade on Teck primarily follows the significant downwardrevision to our price assumptions for the core commodities producedby the company, and corresponding reduction in our estimate of itsprospective earnings and cash flow," said Standard & Poor's creditanalyst Jarrett Bilous.

TERA GROUP: Auction of Assets Moved to March 3----------------------------------------------The sale of collateral of Tera Group Inc., 110 Wall Street, 4thFloor in New York, New York, have been postponed as follows:

Interested bidders should contact J. Small of Foley & Lardner LLPat msmall@foley.com if you have questions about the bidding.

As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 26, 2016,LeoGroup Private Debt Facility LP is seeking to sell all of theassets of Tera Group to the highest qualified bidder by public salein accordance with 6 Del. 9-610. The sale was initially set forFeb. 11, 2016.

The TCR said qualified bidders must wire a deposit of $25,000 alongwith a proof of financial wherewithal sufficient to subsequentlywire transfer in immediately available funds in U.S. Dollars theamount of any successful bid on the date of the sale. The depositis refundable. The deposit of the winning bidder will be appliedto the purchase price.

THERAPEUTICSMD INC: FMR LLC Reports 14.9% Stake as of Dec. 31-------------------------------------------------------------FMR LLC and Abigail P. Johnson disclosed in an amended Schedule 13Gfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 12, 2016,that they beneficially own 26,677,206 shares of common stock ofTherapeutisMD, Inc., representing 14.999 percent of the sharesoutstanding. A copy of the regulatory filing is available for freeat http://is.gd/U1o3lT

About TherapeuticsMD

Boca Raton, Florida-based TherapeuticsMD, Inc. (OTC QB: TXMD) is awomen's healthcare product company focused on creating andcommercializing products targeted exclusively for women. TheCompany currently manufactures and distributes branded and genericprescription prenatal vitamins as well as over-the-countervitamins and cosmetics. The Company is currently focused onconducting the clinical trials necessary for regulatory approvaland commercialization of advanced hormone therapy pharmaceuticalproducts designed to alleviate the symptoms of and reduce thehealth risks resulting from menopause-related hormonedeficiencies.

TherapeuticsMD reported a net loss of $54.2 million on $15.02million of net revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, comparedwith a net loss of $28.4 million on $8.77 million of net revenuesfor the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $90.5 million in totalassets, $12.9 million in total liabilities and $77.6 million intotal stockholders' equity.

Boca Raton, Florida-based TherapeuticsMD, Inc. (OTC QB: TXMD) is awomen's healthcare product company focused on creating andcommercializing products targeted exclusively for women. TheCompany currently manufactures and distributes branded and genericprescription prenatal vitamins as well as over-the-countervitamins and cosmetics. The Company is currently focused onconducting the clinical trials necessary for regulatory approvaland commercialization of advanced hormone therapy pharmaceuticalproducts designed to alleviate the symptoms of and reduce thehealth risks resulting from menopause-related hormonedeficiencies.

TherapeuticsMD reported a net loss of $54.2 million on $15.02million of net revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, comparedwith a net loss of $28.4 million on $8.77 million of net revenuesfor the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $90.5 million in totalassets, $12.9 million in total liabilities and $77.6 million intotal stockholders' equity.

TRANS ENERGY: Clarence Smith Reports 9.8% Stake as of Dec. 31-------------------------------------------------------------Clarence E. Smith disclosed in a Schedule 13G filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission that for calendar year 2015 hebeneficially owned 1,483,797 shares of common stock of TransEnergy, Inc., representing 9.8 percent of the shares outstanding. A copy of the regulatory filing is available for free at:

St. Mary's, West Virginia-based Trans Energy, Inc. (OTC BB: TENG)-- http://www.transenergyinc.com/-- is an independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development,exploitation and production of oil and natural gas. Itsoperations are presently focused in the State of West Virginia.

Trans Energy reported a net loss of $12.5 million on $27.2 millionof total operating revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014,compared with a net loss of $17.7 million on $18.4 million of totaloperating revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $101 million in total assets, $129 million in total liabilities, and a $28 million totalstockholders' deficit.

TRANSCONTINENTAL REFRIG: Pres. Properly Adjudicated as Ch 7 Debtor------------------------------------------------------------------Judge A. Richard Caputo of the United States District Court for theMiddle District of Pennsylvania affirmed the bankruptcy court'sorder granting summary judgment in favor of Navistar FinancialCorporation and Navistar Leasing Company and denied the motionfiled by Stephen P. Hrobuchak, Jr., to stay the bankruptcyproceedings.

On October 30, 2008, a default judgment was entered againstHrobuchak in favor of Navistar in the District Court of the MiddleDistrict of Pennsylvania. Currently, Navistar holds two judgmentsagainst Hrobuchak together totaling $7,642,521.15.

On May 1, 2014, Navistar filed a Chapter 7 Involuntary BankruptcyPetition in the Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District ofPennsylvania against Hrobuchak. On October 23, 2014, thebankruptcy court granted Navistar's motion for summary judgment andadjudicated Hrobuchak as a Chapter 7 Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C.Section 303. Hrobuchak sought reconsideration and filed a motionfor stay which the bankruptcy court both denied.

Hrobuchak appealed from the bankruptcy court's order. In additionto his appeal, Hrobuchak also filed with the district court amotion to stay the bankruptcy case and the order of the bankruptcycourt. TRL, by Lawrence V. Young, acting in his capacity as aliquidating agent, filed a motion for relief from the automaticstay and a corresponding motion for an expedited hearing.

Judge Caputo agreed with the bankruptcy court's decision thatHrobuchak was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law becauseNavistar complied with the rules when filing the InvoluntaryPetition without three creditors and Hrobuchak was properlyadjudicated a Chapter 7 Debtor. Judge Caputo also found that thejoinder of Orix Financial Services, Incorporated corrected anypotential deficiency and that there was no evidence of bad faith onthe part of Navistar in filing the involuntary petition.

As to Hrobuchak's motion to stay, Judge Caputo did not find thatHrobuchak has presented a showing sufficient for entry of a stay onhis behalf. The judge also lifted the automatic stay previouslyissued in the case.

UNITED AMERICA: Owner Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Tax Suit------------------------------------------------------------Judge Norman K. Moon of the United States District Court for theWestern District of Virginia, Lynchburg Division, granted in partand denied in part the motion for summary judgment filed by theUnited States of America and denied William Wallis' motion forsummary judgment.

The Government sued Wallis pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6672 forfailing to pay trust fund taxes for three closely held companiesthat he allegedly owned and operated: United America Holdings,Inc., Boss Management Group, Inc., and Nitti Family Enterprises,Inc. ("Planet Pizza"). The Government also sought to imposepersonal income tax liability on Wallis for taxable years 1998,1999, 2000 and 2002.

Judge Moon found that the trust fund recovery penalties and thepersonal income tax assessments were not time-barred. The judgeheld that the Government timely filed suit after certain eventstolled the limitation periods.

Judge Moon also found that the Internal Revenue Service (the"Service") had given proper notice under 26 U.S.C. Section6672(b)(1) by sending notice to the Wallis' "last known address." Judge Moon then held that there is no evidence that the Service'sSection 6020(b) estimates were "utterly without foundation," whileample proof links Wallis to the tax-generating activity of thecompanies.

Finally, Judge Moon concluded that the evidence proves that Walliswas a responsible person who willfully failed to pay taxes forUnited and Boss. However, the judge found that evidence is not asstrong for Planet Pizza. Thus, Judge Moon held that there is agenuine dispute of material fact whether Wallis is a "responsibleperson" for Planet Pizza during the relevant timeframe.

Judge Moon also granted the Government's motion as it concernspersonal income tax liability. Wallis' motion for summary judgmentwas denied.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM WALLIS,Defendant, Civil No. 6:14-CV-00005 (W.D. Va.).

A full-text copy of Judge Moon's February 1, 2016 memorandumopinion is available at http://is.gd/CITwCIfrom Leagle.com.

Moody's considers Vanguard's retirement of $168 million of existingsenior unsecured notes due 2020 in exchange for $75.6 million ofnew second lien notes due 2023 (which closed on February 10th) as adistressed exchange, which is an event of default under Moody'sdefinition of default. Moody's has appended the PDR with an "/LD"designation indicating a limited default, which will be removedafter three business days.

The ongoing ratings review will consider the weak industryfundamentals that has pressured oil and gas producers' cash flows,as well as focus on Vanguard's operations, ability to generate freecash flow, financial position and liquidity. Oil prices havedeteriorated substantially in 2016 and have reached nominal pricelows not seen in more than a decade. Similarly, natural gas pricesare also depressed as North American production levels remainhigh.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was GlobalIndependent Exploration and Production Industry published inDecember 2011.

VERMILLION INC: Adopts Restructuring Plan to Streamline Operations------------------------------------------------------------------Vermillion, Inc., disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission that it adopted a restructuring plan tostreamline its organization. With approximately $24 million incash as of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company is restructuring headcountand other expenses targeting an approximately 20% reduction inoperating expenses in 2016, as compared to operating expenses in2015.

About Vermillion

Vermillion, Inc., is dedicated to the discovery, development andcommercialization of novel high-value diagnostic tests that helpphysicians diagnose, treat and improve outcomes for patients.Vermillion, along with its prestigious scientific collaborators,has diagnostic programs in oncology, hematology, cardiology andwomen's health.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.Del. Case No. 09-11091) on March 30, 2009. Vermillion's legaladvisor in connection with its successful reorganization effortswass Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. Vermillion emergedfrom bankruptcy in January 2010. The Plan called for the Companyto pay all claims in full and equity holders to retain control ofthe Company.

Vermillion reported a net loss of $19.2 million in 2014, a net lossof $8.81 million in 2013 and a net loss of $7.14 million in 2012.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $25.38 million in totalassets, $3.27 million in total liabilities and $22.11 million intotal stockholders' equity.

VERMILLION INC: Terminates Laura Miller as SVP - Sales------------------------------------------------------Vermillion, Inc., terminated Laura Miller as senior vice president,sales and customer experience, effective Feb. 19, 2016, as part ofrecent changes in the sales organization of the Company, accordingto a Form 8-K report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

Ms. Miller's termination was "without cause" and was not the resultof any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating to theCompany's operations, policies or practices.

About Vermillion

Vermillion, Inc., is dedicated to the discovery, development andcommercialization of novel high-value diagnostic tests that helpphysicians diagnose, treat and improve outcomes for patients.Vermillion, along with its prestigious scientific collaborators,has diagnostic programs in oncology, hematology, cardiology andwomen's health.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.Del. Case No. 09-11091) on March 30, 2009. Vermillion's legaladvisor in connection with its successful reorganization effortswass Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. Vermillion emergedfrom bankruptcy in January 2010. The Plan called for the Companyto pay all claims in full and equity holders to retain control ofthe Company.

Vermillion reported a net loss of $19.2 million in 2014, a net lossof $8.81 million in 2013 and a net loss of $7.14 million in 2012.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $25.38 million in totalassets, $3.27 million in total liabilities and $22.11 million intotal stockholders' equity.

AWM is the investment adviser to Special Situations TechnologyFund, L.P. and Special Situations Technology Fund II, L.P. Asthe investment adviser to the Funds, AWM holds sole voting andinvestment power over 15,867 shares of Common Stock of the Issuerand 4,760,000 Warrants to purchase Shares held by TECH and90,138 and 27,040,000 Warrants to purchase Shares held by TECH II.Austin W. Marxe, David M. Greenhouse and Adam C. Stettnerpreviously reported the Shares held by the Funds on Schedule 13G.

Seattle, Wash.-based Visualant, Inc., was incorporated under thelaws of the State of Nevada on Oct. 8, 1998. The Companydevelops low-cost, high speed, light-based security and qualitycontrol solutions for use in homeland security, anti-counterfeiting, forgery/fraud prevention, brand protection andprocess control applications.

Visualant reported a net loss of $2.63 million on $6.29 million ofrevenue for the year ended Sept. 30, 2015, compared to a net lossof $1.01 million on $7.98 million of revenue for the year endedSept. 30, 2014.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $2.46 million in totalassets, $7.83 million in total liabilities, all current, and a$5.37 million total stockholders' deficit.

PMB Helin Donovan, LLP, in Seattle, Washington, issued a "goingconcern" qualification on the consolidated financial statements forthe year ended Sept. 30, 2015, citing that Company has sustained anet loss from operations and has an accumulated deficit sinceinception. These factors raise substantial doubt about theCompany's ability to continue as a going concern.

-- each of its domestic subsidiaries, as guarantors, -- the lenders from time to time party thereto, and -- Citibank, N.A., as administrative agent and escrow agent for the lenders and collateral agent for the secured creditors.

The DIP Credit Agreement provides for a new debtor-in-possessioncredit facility under Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code, in anaggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000.

The Debtors will use the proceeds of the DIP Credit Agreement forworking capital and general corporate purposes, including thepayment of certain prepetition amounts and expenses in connectionwith the administration of the Chapter 11 Cases, subject to theterms and conditions of the DIP Credit Agreement and the Final DIPOrder (as defined in the DIP Credit Agreement).

The stated maturity of the DIP Credit Agreement is February 29,2016, but is subject to extension and certain automatic extensionsset forth therein relating to the closing of the Company’sproposed Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale pursuant to the AssetPurchase Agreement (as defined in the DIP Credit Agreement).

Borrowings under the DIP Credit Agreement will bear interest at arate equal to 12% per annum payable in cash upon termination of thefacility. Upon closing the Company paid:

-- an upfront fee of $3,750,000, which represents 7.5% of the aggregate commitment under the facility, and

-- a put option premium of 7.5% of the backstop commitment provided by certain Lenders under the facility.

The Company will also pay a drawdown fee of 2.5% of amountswithdrawn.

The obligations under the DIP Credit Agreements constitute, subjectto carve-outs for certain fees and expenses, superpriorityadministrative expense claims in the Chapter 11 Cases, secured bysenior priming perfected first priority security interests andliens on all present and after acquired property of the Debtors,which security interests and liens are subject only to thecarve-out and certain other permitted priority and approved liensspecified in the Final DIP Order.

The DIP Credit Agreement provides that the Debtors must comply withoperating and capital expenditure budgets approved by the lendersset forth therein. The DIP Credit Agreement also contains certaincovenants which, among other things, and subject to certainexceptions, restrict the Debtors’ ability to incur additionaldebt or liens, pay dividends, repurchase its limited liabilitycompany interests, prepay certain other indebtedness, sell,transfer, lease, or dispose of assets, and make investments in ormerge with another company.

If the Debtors were to violate any of the covenants under the DIPCredit Agreement and were unable to obtain a waiver, it would beconsidered a default. If the Debtors were in default under the DIPCredit Agreement, no additional borrowings thereunder would beavailable until the default was waived or cured, and allobligations would become immediately due and payable. The DIPCredit Agreement provides for customary events of default,including a cross-event of default provision in respect ofpost-petition or unstayed indebtedness in excess of $500,000.

A copy of the Senior Secured Superpriority Debtor-in-PossessionCredit Agreement, dated February 8, 2016, among Walter Energy,Inc., as borrower, each domestic subsidiary of Walter Energy, Inc.,as guarantors, the lenders party thereto, and Citibank, N.A., asadministrative agent, escrow agent and collateral agent, isavailable at http://is.gd/XjNDqi

About Walter Energy

Walter Energy -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- is a publicly traded "pure-play" metallurgical coal producer for the global steelindustry with strategic access to steel producers in Europe, Asiaand South America. The Company also produces thermal coal,anthracite, metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas. WalterEnergy employs approximately 2,700 employees, with operations inthe United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, the Company reported a net lossof $471 million following a net loss of $359 million in 2013.

Walter Energy, Inc., and its affiliates sought Chapter 11protection (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Lead Case No. 15-02741) in Birmingham,Alabama on July 15, 2015, after signing a restructuring supportagreement with first-lien lenders.

Walter Energy disclosed total assets of $5.2 billion and total debtof $5 billion as of March 31, 2015.

The Bankruptcy Administrator for the Northern District of Alabamaappointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and anOfficial Committee of Retirees. The Creditors Committee tappedMorrison & Foerster LLP and Christian & Small LLP as attorneys. The Retiree Committee retained Adams & Reese LLP and Jenner &Block LLP as attorneys.

Walter Energy -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- is a publicly traded "pure-play" metallurgical coal producer for the global steelindustry with strategic access to steel producers in Europe, Asiaand South America. The Company also produces thermal coal,anthracite, metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas. WalterEnergy employs approximately 2,700 employees, with operations inthe United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, the Company reported a net lossof $471 million following a net loss of $359 million in 2013.

Walter Energy, Inc., and its affiliates sought Chapter 11protection (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Lead Case No. 15-02741) in Birmingham,Alabama on July 15, 2015, after signing a restructuring supportagreement with first-lien lenders.

Walter Energy disclosed total assets of $5.2 billion and total debtof $5 billion as of March 31, 2015.

The Bankruptcy Administrator for the Northern District of Alabamaappointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and anOfficial Committee of Retirees. The Creditors Committee tappedMorrison & Foerster LLP and Christian & Small LLP as attorneys. The Retiree Committee retained Adams & Reese LLP and Jenner &Block LLP as attorneys.

Citibank, N.A., the administrative agent and escrow agent under a$50 million DIP facility entered into in February 2016, isrepresented by Joseph Smolinsky, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & MangesLLP. The Commitment Parties are represented by Ira Dizengoff,Esq., Kristine Manoukian, Esq. and James Savin, Esq., at Akin GumpStrauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

WESTMORELAND COAL: Boston Partners Holds 7% Stake as of Dec. 31---------------------------------------------------------------In a Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Boston Partners reported that as of Dec. 31, 2015, itbeneficially owns 1,270,558 shares of common stock of WestmorelandCoal Co. representing 7.03 percent of the shares outstanding. Acopy of the regulatory filing is available for free at:

independent coal company in the United States. The Company's coaloperations include coal mining in the Powder River Basin inMontana and lignite mining operations in Montana, North Dakota andTexas. Its power operations include ownership of the two-unitROVA coal-fired power plant in North Carolina.

Westmoreland Coal Company reported a net loss applicable to commonshareholders of $173 million in 2014, a net loss applicable tocommon shareholders of $6.05 million in 2013 and a net lossapplicable to common shareholders of $8.58 million in 2012.

As of Sept. 30, 2015, the Company had $1.72 billion in totalassets, $2.21 billion in total liabilities and a $489 million totaldeficit.

* * *

As reported by the TCR on Nov. 20, 2014, Standard & Poor's RatingServices raised its corporate credit rating on Westmoreland CoalCo. one-notch to 'B' from 'B-'. "The stable outlook is supportedby Westmoreland's committed sales position over the next year,which should result in stable cash flows," said Standard & Poor'scredit analyst Chiza Vitta.

Moody's upgraded the corporate family rating (CFR) of WestmorelandCoal Company to 'B3' from 'Caa1', and assigned 'Caa1' rating to thecompany's proposed new $300 million First Lien Term Loan, the TCRreported on Nov. 20, 2014. The upgrade of the CFR reflects thecompany's successful integration of the Canadian mines acquired inApril 2014, and Moody's expectation that the company's Debt/ EBITDAwill track at around 5x in 2015 and 2016 and that the company willbe break-even to modestly free cash flow positive over the sametime period.

WET SEAL: Hudson Bay Holds 9.45% of Common Shares-------------------------------------------------Hudson Bay Capital Management LP disclosed in its Schedule 13G/A(Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionthat it may be deemed to beneficially own 8,804,348 shares orroughly 9.45% of Seal123, Inc. (f/k/a The Wet Seal, Inc.) commonstock as of Dec. 31, 2015.

Versa Capital Management, LLC, and its affiliate, Mador Lending,LLC, which was selected as the successful bidder at an auction, wasadvised by Greenberg Traurig LLP, Klehr Harrison Harvey BranzburgLLP, and KPMG LLP.

The U.S. Trustee has appointed an Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors. The Committee retained Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLPas its counsel and Province Inc. as its financial advisor.

The Wet Seal, Inc., changed its name to "Seal123, Inc." on April17, 2015, in accordance with the Asset Purchase Agreement withMador Lending, LLC, an affiliate of Versa Capital Management, LLCas buyer.

On October 30, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an orderconfirming the First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation. The Planwas co-proposed by the Debtors and the Creditors Committee. ThePlan was originally filed with the Bankruptcy Court on August 10,2015 and subsequently amended on September 8, 2015. The Planbecame effective on December 31, 2015.

The Debtor did not include a list of its largest unsecured creditors when it filed the petition.

ZLOOP INC: Chapter 11 Plan Proposes Sale of Assets--------------------------------------------------Zloop, Inc., et al., filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Delaware a Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation andaccompanying disclosure statement, which contemplate the sale ofsubstantially all of the Debtors's assets, before, on or followingthe Effective Date.

Since November of 2015, the Debtors' Chief Restructuring Officerhas been working to ready the Debtors and their assets for Sale asa going concern in order to maximize value for the Debtors'Estates. The Plan is in furtherance of the CRO's Sale process. The Debtors contemplate that substantially all of their assetslocated in Hickory, North Carolina, will be sold under the Plan,but the CRO, on behalf of the Debtors, reserves the right to fileone or more motions to establish Sale procedures for an auction, toname a stalking horse and grant a stalking horse standard bidderprotections and to seek the entry of an order approving a Saleother than the Confirmation Order.

Further, the Plan contemplates that the Estates' Causes of Actionwill all be preserved and vest in a Liquidating Trust, except thosethat may be the subject of a judgment or release, approved by theBankruptcy Court prior to the Effective Date. The LiquidatingTrustee will continue to investigate the Causes of Action andprosecute the Estates' Causes of Action.

ZLOOP operates a proprietary, state of the art, 100% landfill freeeWaste recycling company headquartered in Hickory, North Carolina.

The Debtors tapped DLA Piper LLP as counsel.

As of the Petition Date, the Debtors' unaudited consolidatedbalance sheet reflect total assets of approximately $25 million,including the land and improvements, but excluding certaincommodity inventories that are the output of eWaste recycling, andtotal liabilities of approximately $32 million.

On Sept. 2, 2015, the U.S. trustee overseeing the Debtors' Chapter11 cases appointed Recycling Equipment Inc., E Recycling SystemsLLC and Carolina Metals Group to serve on the official committeeof unsecured creditors. The committee is represented by ColeSchotz P.C.

The rating actions are a result of the recent performance of theunderlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectation onthe pools. The rating upgrades are a result of the improvingperformance of the related pools and an increase in creditenhancement available to the bonds. The rating downgrades are dueto the weaker performance of the underlying collateral and theerosion of enhancement available to the bonds.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBSSurveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level ofmacroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate fell to 4.9% in January 2016 from 5.7% inJanuary 2015. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this centralscenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody'sexpects house prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower increasesthan Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative ratingactions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependenton servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicingtransfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact theperformance of these transactions.

Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative pricesfor bond issues that reportedly trade well below par. Prices areobtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources duringthe prior week we think are reliable. Those sources may not,however, be complete or accurate. The Monday Bond Pricing tableis compiled on the Friday prior to publication. Prices reportedare not intended to reflect actual trades. Prices for actualtrades are probably different. Our objective is to shareinformation, not make markets in publicly traded securities.Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy orsell any security of any kind. It is likely that some entityaffiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuerspublic debt and equity securities about which we report.

Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies withinsolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 pershare in public markets. At first glance, this list may look likethe definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.Don't be fooled. Assets, for example, reported at historical costnet of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm'sassets. A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet forliabilities that may never materialize. The prices at whichequity securities trade in public market are determined by morethan a balance sheet solvency test.

On Thursdays, the TCR delivers a list of recently filedChapter 11 cases involving less than $1,000,000 in assets andliabilities delivered to nation's bankruptcy courts. The listincludes links to freely downloadable images of these small-dollarpetitions in Acrobat PDF format.

Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book ofinterest to troubled company professionals. All titles areavailable at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com. Go tohttp://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today.

Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday editionof the TCR.

The Sunday TCR delivers securitization rating news from the weekthen-ending.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers. Information containedherein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but isnot guaranteed.

The TCR subscription rate is $975 for 6 months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.